Youth Volunteer Exchange Programmes in the Southern and Eastern African Regions That Contribute to Development Goals and Integration

Description of document: Final Research Report

Title: Youth Volunteer Exchange Programmes in Southern and Eastern Africa: Models and Effects

By: Jacob Mwathi Mati

Date: March 30th, 2012

IDRC Project Number: 106282-00020602-062

IDRC Project Title: Initiative to Build Knowledge about the Value of Volunteering and Civic Service for Development in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region

Country/Region: Canada, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa

Full Name of Research Institution: Canada World Youth and Volunteer and Service Enquiry South Africa

Address of Research Institution: Canada World Youth, 2330, Notre Dame West, 3rd floor, Montreal, Quebec, H3J 1N4 and Volunteer Service Enquiry South Africa, P O Box 85535 Emmarentia 2029 South Africa

Name(s) of Researcher/Members of Research Team: Jacob Mwathi Mati (lead researcher and writer), Helene Perold, Moses Emanuel Mnzava, Erma Cossa, Hélder Nhamaze, Karena, Cronin, Learnmore Muchemwa and Benter Okello

Members of Coordination and Project Management Team: Karena Cronin, Helene Perold and Nadia Karina Ponce Morales

Contact Information of Researcher/Research Team members: Jacob Mwathi Mati, [email protected], Helene Perold, [email protected]

This report is presented as received from project recipient(s). It has not been subjected to peer review or other review processes.

This work is used with the permission of Volunteer and Service Enquiry South Africa and Canada World Youth

Abstract:

This research report explores two different models of youth volunteer exchange programmes in the southern and eastern African regions that contribute to development goals and integration. It provides good practices of youth volunteering programming so as to promote these models in the region and elements that can be improved in the program design of similar initiatives. Applying the collaborative inquiry and social engagement techniques embodied in the Social Analysis Systems (SAS2) methodology, the study was a comparative study of Canada World Youth south-to-south Youth Leaders in Action exchange programmes (between South Africa and Mozambique, Kenya and Tanzania) and Southern Africa Trust’s SayXchange programme in South Africa and Mozambique. Three areas of impacts were identified: impacts on volunteers, host communities and host organizations. This research contributes to an emerging body of literature that seeks to address volunteering as a key element to realize the potential of social capital, cultivated through people-to-people interactions, which can enhance the possibilities of success of regional integration project and its development objectives.

Keywords: south-south, youth exchanges, youth programs, volunteer action, Canada World Youth, SayXchange

YOUTH VOLUNTEER EXCHANGE PROGRAMMES IN SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA: MODELS AND EFFECTS

A study conducted

by Volunteer and Service Enquiry Southern Africa (VOSESA)

in partnership with

Canada World Youth and their Youth Leaders in Action partners

and

Southern Africa Trust and their SayXchange partners

Funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada

March 2012

Report written by Jacob Mwathi Mati and edited by Helene Perold for VOSESA

Acknowledgements This report as well as the study reported in it was a collaborative effort by many people and organisations in many countries. VOSESA would like to thank all those individuals and organisations that helped to make this possible.

First and foremost, the project would not have been possible without the willingness of the Canada World Youth Young Leaders in Action programme and the SayXchange programme to expose themselves to external gaze. More importantly, we thank you for having mobilised your various partners in Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa to participate in the study. They included AFS Interculture in South Africa, Kijabe Environment Volunteers (KENVO) in Kenya, UVIKUITA in Tanzania, Volunteer Centre Cape Town in South Africa, and AJUDE and AMODEFA in Mozambique.

We also extend our special thanks also to these organisations (AFS Interculture, KENVO, UVIKUITA Volunteer Centre, AJUDE and AMODEFA) for the logistical support they provided in helping us mobilise participants for this study. Our sincere gratitude goes to all the volunteers, host families, host communities and host organisations that took part in the study. Thank you for sharing your experiences and insights with us – your experience has helped us take forward our understanding of the nature and potential of youth volunteer exchange programmes in the SADC region and has made an important contribution to the regional knowledge base in this respect.

To Canada World Youth (CWY) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) we extend a special word of thanks. Without the CWY partnership and the grant from the IDRC, this study would not have been possible. The feedback provided by CWY and the Southern African Trust on the initial draft also enabled us to produce a better product, and we thank you for that.

Special thanks also go to Daniel Buckles for assisting in the development of the Social Analysis Systems (SAS2) methodology used in this study, as well as for training the VOSESA team across the Atlantic, using Skype. The researchers Moses Emanuel Mnzava, Erma Cossa and Hélder Nhamaze assisted us with the data collection and were key to our ability to carry out the study. We are greatly indebted to them for undertaking the research and for doing so in a short space of time and sometimes under difficult conditions.

Finally, sincere thanks go to the VOSESA team members who all made critical contributions to the study and the research report: Helene Perold, Karena, Cronin, Learnmore Muchemwa, Benter Okello and Jacob Mwathi Mati all made different inputs to this study. Their commitment and interest has enabled VOSESA to widen the knowledge base about voluntary service in southern and eastern Africa in important respects.

Executive summary

This report details a study conducted in 2011 by VOSESA in collaboration with Canada World Youth and the Southern Africa Trust to explore how different models of youth volunteer exchange programmes in the southern and eastern African regions contribute to development goals and integration. The report hopes to share good practices of youth volunteering programming so as to promote these models in the region. Utilising the collaborative inquiry and social engagement techniques embodied in the Social Analysis Systems (SAS2) methodology, the study was a comparative study of Canada World Youth south-to-south Youth Leaders in Action exchange programmes (between South Africa and Mozambique, Kenya and Tanzania) and Southern Africa Trust’s SayXchange programme in South Africa and Mozambique. The principal research questions that the study sought to answer were: 1) What models of youth volunteer exchange programmes are active in the region? 2) What are the impacts of regional youth volunteer exchange programmes in southern and eastern Africa on:

 Volunteers (specifically, the programme impact on attitudes towards host country; knowledge of development issues; knowledge of host country; communication, organisational and technical skills developed);  Host organisations (specifically, programme impact on organisational effectiveness in achieving given mandate/goals; efficiency in the use of resources; financial viability; relevance of organisational activities to key stakeholders);  Host communities (specifically, programme impact on knowledge/learning, attitudes and values, friendships across borders, skills, career studies, and local and regional action).

The primary motivations for the study emanated from the fact that while the peoples of southern and eastern African regions are conjoined by an integral social, economic and political history, the political and economic integration project has either neglected or does not give sufficient emphasis to the potential of social capital, cultivated through people-to-people interactions, to enhance the possibilities of success of regional integration project. The current study suggests that regional awareness and the development of a regional identity at grassroots level can be fostered through regional youth exchange programmes that support the development priorities of regional integration initiatives such as SADC, the EAC and the African Union.

The SayXchange programme was developed by the Southern African Trust and implemented by AFS Interculture South Africa following the xenophobic attacks in South Africa during the first half of 2008. The SayXchange youth exchange programme is a home-grown programme developed by Africans for Africans. It is a programme aimed at changing the volunteers’ lives, their families, and communities. The programme utilises a reciprocal volunteering approach in its south-south model of volunteering. The programme runs for five months and involves the placement of volunteers in community-based organisations (CBOs) in the host country. Southern Africa Trust supports the participants through this process.

The Youth Leaders in Action programme is a unique CWY initiative funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). It comprises five different components: Youth Exchanges; Inter-Institutional Capacity Building; Sector Projects; the Youth Leadership Initiative (which provides seed grants to youth-led initiatives); and the Learning Forum. The YLA programme focuses on three key sectors: health, environment and gender equality. It aims to contribute to the realisation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Canada World Youth in association with its partners in Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania runs the exchanges between two countries: participants from South Africa are paired with their counterparts from Mozambique while those from Tanzania are paired with the Kenyans.

The two programmes have similarities, but also some differences, particularly in programme design and length of placements. These have a bearing on the impacts of the programmes. Such convergences and divergences are highlighted in this report. The key features are that in both programmes volunteers are placed in a host community. They are involved in the activities of a local community-based organisation and are hosted by a family within the host community. As such, this study sought to establish the impacts of these programmes on participating volunteers, host families and host organisations. Further it sought to evaluate the programme accessibility and the nature of youth social and economic participation.

Impacts on volunteers The main impacts of the programmes on volunteers were captured and measured using three key exercises. The first exercise used a Helper illustration of a human being with six different parts of the human body representing different impacts areas: the head for knowledge and learning; the heart for attitudes or values; one hand for skills; the other hand for friendships with people from another country; one foot for career steps (including studies); and the other foot for local or regional action taken after or during the programme (in the community in which the participant lives, works or studies, or in the wider community). Volunteers in all study sites and for both programmes expressed a general sense of appreciation for the programmes as they enjoyed the different exposures that the programmes afforded them, which broadened their scope outside their home communities and their countries. Further, the study shows that while all the impact areas were mentioned to varying degrees of frequency across the various study sites and programmes, friendships across borders registered greatest impacts for volunteers in both Mozambique and South Africa for both the SayXchange and the CWY programmes while knowledge and learning was registered as the most important impact in eastern Africa. Various programme activities including living with a host family, doing a community service project, pairing up/interacting with youth from another country (specific to the CWY programme), and receiving educational/training support contribute to impacts of the programme in varying degrees. For instance, volunteer participants of both SayXchange and CWY programmes reported having learnt something valuable from the education and training days, which equipped them with skills they needed to interact with their host communities. In both programmes, the most impactful activities were the experiences of living with a host family

as was pairing with other youth, since these led to the formation of strong bonds between volunteers and families. Some of these bonds, the study established, extend even to parents. This has therefore been one aspect that contributes immensely to a sense of friendship across borders and a creation of a shared identity. The second key exercise evaluated the programme’s impact on six specific aspects of the knowledge, skills and attitudes they acquired. The report points to volunteers gaining knowledge of development issues such as knowledge of HIV/AIDS dynamics, sources of conflicts, and development challenges as well as gender dynamics. Volunteers also reported gaining skills in communication including learning other languages, presentation, and public speaking.

Impacts on host families and communities The impacts of the programme on host families and communities were captured utilising a Helper similar to the one used with the volunteers. The findings indicate that the programme had impacts on host families and communities in both programmes. All study sites reported gains stemming from the interaction they had with the participants and the changes they saw taking place in the communities’ values and attitudes, especially towards people from other cultures or other races. The participants felt that the programmes are very relevant to their communities, as they have shaped relationships between community members as well perceptions about people who are different, and also produced an appreciation of multiculturalism. Specifically, the programmes have resulted in friendships across borders, changes in attitudes and values, gaining knowledge and learning and even skills. Perhaps even more important is the appreciation that these exchange programmes have had an impact of rejuvenating the volunteering spirit in these communities.

Impacts on host and partner organisations The study sought to evaluate the levels of impact on effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and financial viability on host organisations. This was done using a Socratic wheel. Overall the CWY partner organisations in Kenya, South Africa and Tanzania registered satisfaction and higher levels of impact than host organisations across board. Nonetheless the variations in the level of impact rating between host and partners organisations across both programmes were not significant. The lower scores given by host organisations were usually attributed to the amount of time an organisation had been involved in the programme. Organisations that had been partners for longer periods of time felt that the programme registered greater impact on their operations in the four impact areas. Regarding impacts on the effectiveness of host and partner organisations, there are differences between eastern and southern Africa: participants from the host organisation focus groups in both Kenya and Tanzania rated the CWY south-south exchange programme’s impact on their effectiveness at 4 out of 5. For partner organisations in both Kenya and Tanzania, there is a high level alignment between the mission of the organisations and the CWY south-south programme goal. Specifically, partners work on environmental issues, which is one of the programme areas for CWY. Such alignment is not as significant in Mozambique and South Africa, which registers a variety of issues that volunteers and partner organisations work

on. This suggests that programme area alignment between partners is a key variable in explaining the effectiveness impact of such programmes.

Opportunities for programmes development Despite the positives recorded in both programmes, the study also highlights several areas that need to be addressed in order to maximise the benefits of these programmes. Among these are the need for better resourcing and the need to address structural constraints that limit youth participation in the programmes. Partner organisations could consider investing more time in preparing host communities to participate in south-to-south programmes and laying the ground work for an improved cooperation with work placements. This could produce a better understanding among host families of the importance of southern youth exchanges, and improved communication with volunteers. Partner investments in the training of Project staff and the allocation of supervisors with appropriate skills would also help to strengthen the programme. It is important to recognise that partners and communities take time to get to grips with the programme goals and values, and to find ways of working together to design locally suitable strategies for implementing the programmes. The CWY and SayXchange programme designs present important learning opportunities for youth volunteer exchange experiences. While the former grows out of a north-south exchange model and the latter was designed within the southern African context, the research findings demonstrate that both programmes still need to evolve and find their appropriate form within the southern and east African contexts in which they are operating. Nonetheless, the issue of skills acquisition is a complex one and differs in each country context. Consideration needs to be given to the motivation of the volunteers to participate in this exchange programme and this impacts on screening processes and volunteers’ expectations. It is inevitable that issues of power relations feature in programmes that seek collaboration between partners from the north and the south. These were manifested to some degree in the CWY programmes in respect of issues of equitable resourcing and expectations of how volunteers should conduct themselves. The risk in southern countries is that the costs of participating in the volunteer exchange programmes may serve to exclude youth who could otherwise benefit enormously from such experience. This makes demands on the partner organisations to find creative solutions to ensure that the programmes can achieve their full potential in resource-constrained communities. Overall, the research results produce new insights in relation to a tension between an old (traditional) order of volunteerism in African communities and the new (modern) emerging forms exemplified by these exchanges. This is specifically due to monetisation or commodification (through stipends) of time. There is definitely an appreciation, even among host families, of new forms of volunteering such as these exchanges, because of reciprocity, mutual benefit, and an appreciation of common humanity. However, further research on these

exchanges is required to determine whether the new forms will be fully appreciated for their potential to bring communities together and whether these impacts are likely to be sustained.

List of tables and figures

Table 1 Comparison of key features of the SayXchange and CWY south-to-south youth exchange programmes Table 2 Profile of the study participants Table 3 Distribution of the impact cards by impact area Table 4 The contribution of programme activities to impacts on volunteers Table 5 Impact ratings for knowledge, skills and attitudes Table 6 Programme impacts on host families

Figure 1 Helper impact zones Figure 2 Socratic wheel assessing knowledge, skills and attitudinal impacts on volunteers Figure 3 Socratic wheel assessing knowledge, skills and attitudinal impacts on host organisations Figure 4 Force field analysis tool

List of Acronyms

CWY Canada World Youth EAC East Africa Community MZ Mozambique TZ Tanzania SA South Africa SADC Southern Africa Development Community

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 2.0 A note on methodology ...... 5 3.0 Overview of volunteer exchange programme models in southern and eastern Africa ...... 7 3.1 Canada World Youth programme model ...... 9

3.2 SayXchange programme model ...... 10

3.3 Comparing Canada World Youth south-to-south and SayXchange programmes models ...... 11

3.4 SCORE/FK-Norway programme model ...... 12

3.5 VSO South-to-South programme model ...... 13

4.0 Findings from past studies on south-to-south youth volunteer exchange programmes...... 13 4.1 CWY Impact Assessment (2006 evaluation) ...... 13

4.2 Key findings from FK-Norway Study (2009) ...... 14

4.3 AFS Interculture/Southern Africa Trust internal evaluation of the first cohort of SayXchange (unpublished) 15

5.0 Emerging findings from the current CWY and SayXchange study ...... 15 5.1 Impacts of CWY and SayXchange Youth programme on young volunteers ...... 16

5.1.1 Impacts on friendships across borders ...... 17 5.1.2 Impacts on attitudes and values of volunteers ...... 18 5.1.3 Impacts on knowledge and learning ...... 20 5.1.4 Impact on skills ...... 22 5.1.5 Impacts on career/studies ...... 23 5.1.6 Impacts on local/regional action ...... 23 5.1.7 Conclusions on self-assessed impacts ...... 23 5.1.8 Programme activities contributions to impact ...... 24 5.1.9 Conclusion on programme activities contributions to impact ...... 28 5.1.10 Programme impacts on specific aspects of volunteers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes ...... 30 5.2 Programme impacts on host families and communities ...... 32

5.2.1 Programme impacts on friendships across borders ...... 34 5.2.2 Programme impacts on host communities attitudes and values ...... 34

5.2.3 Programme impacts on host communities knowledge and learning ...... 35 5.2.4 Programme impacts on host communities skills ...... 37 5.2.5 Programme impacts on host families/communities Career/Studies ...... 38 5.2.6 Programme impacts on host families/communities in local action ...... 38 5.2.7 Conclusion on programme impacts on host families ...... 38 5.3 Programme impacts on host and partner organisations ...... 39

5.3.1 Programme impacts on effectiveness of host and partner organisations ...... 41 5.3.2 Programme impacts on efficiency of host and partner organisations ...... 43 5.3.3 Programme relevance to host and partner organisations ...... 46 5.3.4 Programme impacts on financial viability of the host and partner organisations ...... 48 5.3.5 Conclusion on impacts to host and partner organisations ...... 51 6.0 Respondent recommendations for strengthening programme impacts ...... 53 6.1 Programme challenges/Driving forces for limited youth participation in the exchange programme ...... 54

6.1.1 Resource constraints ...... 54 6.1.2 Lack of life skills ...... 55 6.1.4 Competing priorities and other structural constraints ...... 57 6.1.5 Attitudes towards volunteering ...... 59 6.2 Enabling factors for youth participation in the exchange programmes ...... 59

6.2.1 Availability of resources ...... 59 6.2.3 Availability of volunteers ...... 61 6.2.5 Addressing concerns regarding qualifications limitations (i.e. age, education) ...... 63 6.3 Ideas for improvement provided by host family participants ...... 63

6.3.1 Recommendations with financial implications ...... 63 6.3.2 Recommendation on greater involvement and empowerment of host families ...... 64 6.3.3 Exit strategies and post-placement support for volunteers ...... 65 6.3.4 Focused programming ...... 66 7.0 Key Lessons and implications: A Conclusion ...... 66 References ...... 69 Appendices ...... 70 Appendix 1: Photographs of the Force Field exercises...... 70

Appendix II: Research methodology and research instruments ...... 70

1.0 Introduction The peoples of southern and eastern African regions are conjoined by an integral social, economic and political history. Over the last two centuries there have been several forces at play that have had a dual effect on the political integration project on the countries in the two regions. One key force is the process of colonialism and its bifurcated impact on the continent. Colonialism created the present day African nation states and by extension, the divisions in the regions along the 1884 Berlin conference boundaries that partitioned the continent. The process of colonialism also exacerbated the migrations of African peoples already occurring, in some instances even across the new boundaries. These migrations had started in the 1700s as a response to military and territorial expansions as well as increasing population pressures mainly from southern Africa, while in some cases migration was induced by drought and decreasing resources throughout the region.

Arguably, however, it is the new waves of migration induced by the colonial political economy that have had far-reaching implications for the region and the continent in general. This manifested particularly in regard to developments in taxation, large scale/commercial agriculture and the mining industry. If agriculture and mining sought to attract migrant workers as cheap labour from all over the region from the mid-19th century onwards, it was the introduction of taxation in its various forms that forced the majority of African populations to migrate in order to sell their labour and be able to pay taxes (Berg, 1965).1 It is instructive to note here that because the early scramble for Africa was mainly led by imperial companies like the British South Africa Company and the Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEAC), the resultant national boundaries were quite arbitrary. However, there were attempts to amalgamate some of the countries as economic federations, particularly the ones that were ruled by the same colonial power. The case of the amalgamation of the then Northern and Southern Rhodesia (present day Zambia and Zimbabwe) and Nyasaland (present day Malawi) to the Central African Federation, or the establishment of the East African High Commission (overseeing common services and administration of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania) during the colonial era, are a case in point. Indeed, the present day South Africa is itself a product of such amalgamation of several settler colonies.

The net result of these developments under colonialism and resultant migrations is that today individuals still travel between different southern and eastern African regional member states. Many people have kinship, friendship and community ties that span two or more southern and eastern African countries. While most of the earlier economic unions died immediately after independence, the social, political and economic integration of the African people remained a political project of the Organisation of African Unity as well as its successor, the African Union. As a result, there are today several regional integration initiatives present on the continent. For the purposes of this report, two prominent ones are the Southern African Development

1 See also South Africa, available at http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/history.htm. Accessed 13th December 2011.

Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) spearheading regional integration in the southern and eastern Africa respectively.

The SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) outlines a common development agenda for its member states. It calls on people and regional institutions to participate in ‘strengthen[ing] and consolidate[ing] the long-standing historical, social, and cultural affinities and links among the people of the region.’ Likewise, the EAC founding charter notes the need for closer integration based on ‘close historical, commercial, industrial, cultural and other ties for many years.’ Despite the presence of a clear political framework, it is less clear that a regional identity is visible or shared among citizens of the member states of the two regional blocks. The ‘sense of being part of a common political space and of holding common political values in southern Africa … is shared more by governments, and in particular heads of state and government … than by the average person’ (Kornegay, 2006).2 Likewise, Kasaija (2004: 21) argues that the East African ‘leaders have not carried the people along with them on the integration journey. One main problem of attempts at integration in East Africa in particular, and Africa in general, has been that they have been leader- led.'

Regional identity and regional citizenship needs to be developed from the ‘bottom up’ if it is to have meaning in the everyday lives and perspectives of ordinary citizens. Here, youth volunteer exchange programmes serve as one of the bridges for people-to-people interactions. As such, a number of indications are emerging that the enhancement of regional awareness and the development of a regional identity at grassroots level could be fostered through regional youth exchange programmes that support the development priorities of regional integration initiatives such as SADC, the EAC and the African Union. Such priorities include poverty alleviation, combating health challenges such as HIV and AIDS, human resource development, gender equality and sustainable development.

Against this background, VOSESA and Canada World Youth (CWY) conducted a study in 2011 to: (a) Explore how different models of youth volunteer exchange programmes in the southern and eastern African regions contribute to development goals and integration; and (b) Share good practices of youth volunteering programming so as to promote these models in the region.

The principal research questions that the study sought to answer were: 1. What models of youth volunteer exchange programmes are active in the region? 2. What are the impacts of regional youth volunteer exchange programmes in southern and eastern Africa on:

2 See also an internal report of the Southern African Trust (SAT) and AFS Interculture South Africa (undated) on the SayXchange programme titled ‘Integrating the youth in Southern Africa’ for similar observations. They cite the recent xenophobic attacks on foreign nationals in South Africa as one indicator of how indifferent the peoples of southern Africa are to each other.

2.0 A note on methodology This study utilised collaborative inquiry and social engagement techniques embodied in the Social Analysis Systems (SAS2) methodology. The SAS2 technique combines participatory experiential learning and the shared ownership of research results in both qualitative and quantitative ways. Canada World Youth and VOSESA collaborated on the design of the research instruments utilised in the study, with the assistance of Daniel Buckles3. As the SAS2 methodology was new to VOSESA, Daniel Buckles (a certified SAS2 trainer) conducted training on the methodology in two sessions using Skype. Thereafter, Jacob Mwathi Mati from VOSESA trained three contracted researchers, each of whom worked on a separate strand (sites) of the research. The researchers were: Moses Mnzava from Tanzania who worked on the Kenyan and Tanzanian component of the CWY Youth Leaders in Action, Erma Cossa from South Africa (formerly from Mozambique) who worked on the South African and Mozambican component of the SayXchange programme as well as some parts of the Mozambican component of the CWY Youth Leaders in Action, and Hélder Nhamaze from Mozambique who worked on aspects of the South African and Mozambican components of the CWY Youth Leaders in Action. As such, the study included a capacity building component by introducing VOSESA and these researchers to the SAS2 methodology.

The study involved immense inputs from partners in the CWY and SayXchange programmes and from host organisations. The participating partner organisations in the study were: Partner organisations of Canada World Youth, which runs south-to-south youth exchange programmes between South Africa and Mozambique in southern Africa and between Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa, and the SayXchange partners in South Africa and Mozambique. The local partner agencies for Canada World Youth are: Volunteer Centre Cape Town in South Africa, AJUDE in Mozambique, UVIKUITA in Tanzania and Kijabe Environment Volunteers (KENVO) in Kenya. The Southern Africa Trust’s SayXchange youth volunteer exchange programme, which started as a response to the xenophobic attacks in South Africa during the first half of 2008, is implemented by two partner organisations: AFS Interculture in South Africa and AMODEFA in Mozambique. All these organisations

2 3 Daniel Buckles is Adjunct Research Professor at Carleton University, Canada, and principal Consultant at SAS Dialogue. He was formerly Senior Program Specialist at IDRC.

participated in the current study. In 2011 SayXchange introduced a third component to its programme (involving young volunteers from Malawi exchanging with volunteers from Mozambique and South Africa), but this did not form part of this study.

A total of 18 focus group interviews were conducted between August and September 2011. Six of these took place with volunteers (two in South Africa for CWY and SayXchange; two in Mozambique for CWY and SayXchange; one in Tanzania and one Kenya for CWY); ; six with host families and host communities (two in South Africa for CWY and SayXchange; two in Mozambique for CWY and SayXchange; one in Tanzania and one Kenya for CWY); and six with partner/host organisations (two in South Africa for CWY and SayXchange; two in Mozambique for CWY and SayXchange; one in Tanzania and one Kenya for CWY). These interviews took place at different sites in the participating countries.

The multi-layered approach to the data sources was necessitated by the nested nature of interactions between different actors in the youth volunteer exchange programmes. Both Canada World Youth and SayXchange recruit young volunteers who go through a stringent selection process and receive pre-departure training. In both programmes volunteers are placed in a host community. They are involved in the activities of a local community-based organisation and are hosted by a family within the host community. In the case of the Canada World Youth programme, the young people in the two different countries are paired and in each country they spend time in the host organisations and host families together. The SayXchange programme, on the other hand, sends young people from their own country into the other country that is involved in the programme (in this study South Africa and Mozambique). The volunteers thus swap places and spend time in a foreign country with a host organisation and host family.

To determine the impacts, it was therefore necessary to tap insights from each of these groups. Each researcher thus collected data from both ends of an ‘arc’: Tanzania – Kenya (Canada World Youth) and Mozambique – South Africa (Canada World Youth and SayXchange).

Other data sources While data collection concentrated on the focus groups, a variety of sources was used to gather information about the two exchange programmes. For example, VOSESA observed part of a SayXchange volunteer orientation programme for South African volunteers who were undergoing pre-departure training and Malawian volunteers who had just arrived in Johannesburg between 22nd and 23rd July 2011. Notes taken from these observations are utilised in this research paper. This paper also utilises additional data and information on youth volunteer exchange programmes such as internal organisational materials shared with us about the CWY and SayXchange programmes, materials from the websites of the respective organisations as well as blogs of past volunteers (particularly in the case of SayXchange, which runs a blog for past volunteers) that capture volunteer stories and experiences. We also gathered some background information on volunteer exchange programmes such as those run by FK-Norway and VSO as grey literature on existing south-to-south volunteering models operating in the region.

A data analysis framework looking at the unique features and objectives of the two regional youth volunteer exchange programmes was developed to guide both data collection and analysis. This broadly involved the following themes:  Impacts of the programme on participating volunteers, host families and host organisations;  Programme accessibility;  Main challenges encountered by participants and suggestions for overcoming them;  Key learning points;  Youth social and economic participation;  Service learning; and  Gender and cultural sensitivity themes.

In addition, the data was quantitatively analysed. This involved getting average scores for various components of the data that were sourced utilising quantitative techniques.

While noting the above framework, it needs to be mentioned here that the SAS2 methodology involves visual ways of collecting data and draws both participants and the researcher into the process of analysing these results. The researcher’s role is specifically to facilitate the focus group and to stimulate dialogue between participants on key questions. As such, results are sometimes the product of negotiation because people’s views sometimes changed as a result of their interaction with each other in the focus groups.

3.0 Overview of volunteer exchange programme models in southern and eastern Africa Citizens of many African countries demonstrate a strong tradition of volunteering for development and social and political change (see for example Patel et al, 2007; Wilkinson-Maposa and Fowler, 2009; Wilkinson- Maposa, et al., 2005). Most of volunteerism is manifested informally.4 However, in the last few decades this volunteer energy has also been channelled through civil society organisations. The advent of formal volunteer- involving organisations also saw the emergence of different models and practices in volunteer recruitment, management and sending. Volunteer exchange programmes in the southern and eastern African regions takes predominantly the following main forms/models:  A north-to-south model where volunteers from northern developed countries are placed in southern developing countries;  Volunteering within own communities. This is the most dominant model. A distinguishing feature of voluntary service here is that the socio-economic profile of the servers corresponds closely with that of the beneficiaries: servers are poor and vulnerable (Patel et al., 2007). This contrasts with the server profile in industrial societies where servers come from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds.

4 Taniguchi (2011: 3) defines informal volunteering as involvement in unpaid work carried out for a charitable, social, or political purpose in an informal network of extended families, friends, and neighbours.

Thus volunteering in one’s own community in the region is often a response to poverty and represents an attempt to mitigate its negative impacts in society.  South-to-south volunteering programmes where volunteers from one developing country are placed in another southern country (Fulbrook, 2007). This is the focus of the current report and its key features are discussed below.

South-to-south volunteering programmes South-to-south volunteering programmes are volunteer exchange programmes that have multiple objectives. A key objective of such programmes is seeking to promote development cooperation initiatives amongst developing countries. Fulbrook (2007) highlights how south-to-south volunteering experiences have changed conventional international volunteering discourse that has for long been heavily dominated by the north-to- south model. Specifically, increased involvement of volunteers from developing nations through south-to- south programmes have challenged the orthodox perception of international volunteers as people from northern countries who bring skills and monetary support to poor communities assumed to have zero capacity. The south-to-south exchange programmes have produced a developmental discourse, which showcases the locus of volunteering as sharing skills. Such discourse is useful in challenging existing stereotypes that see developing economies are merely recipients of aid and have nothing to offer in development practices.

Moreover, as Plewes and Stuart (2007) have argued, south-to-south volunteering is one of the reciprocal volunteering models that helps reduce the ethical pitfall of instrumentalising southern communities – a situation in which the receiving communities are perceived as providing privileged northern volunteers with tools for gaining experience. The argument for the ethical pitfalls of instrumentalising African communities endorses the perspective posed in the post-colonial development theory as discussed by Green in Roberts (2004). The theory speaks of ‘development as an institution as part of the problem, it is considered a bureaucratic force with global reach and an explicitly pro-capitalist agenda, operating as a tool of regimes that seek to perpetuate relations of inequality and dependence between the West and the rest, and through representation, to perpetuate the construction of others as post-colonial subjects’.

The prominence of development ideologies shaped by theories such as the post-colonial theory emerges as one of the key dynamics supporting increased south-to-south cooperation. In motivating for its south-to-south exchange programme, FK Norway (2009), for instance, stresses that, ‘south-to-south exchange is on side with the world of the future: a more self-conscious, educated and powerful South, which does not accept traditional dominance and conditions imposed by the North’. From this motivation, it can be argued that most south-to-south exchange programmes are development initiatives structured in response to and aimed at addressing the traditional unilateral dominance of the north in both aid and development. Programmes such as Canada World Youth’s South-to-South Young Leaders in Action, SayXchange, VSO South-to-South volunteering, FK Norway and Score, join a growing list of south-to-south volunteer exchange models that have emerged in the last two decades. The key features of each of these programmes are explained briefly in the paragraphs below.

3.1 Canada World Youth programme model Founded in 1971, Canada World Youth is a not-for-profit organisation that operates in Canada and internationally. It is mainly focused on providing high-quality educational opportunities for youth aged 15 to 29 in leadership for sustainable development. The organisation has 40 years of experience working with youth who have a vital role to play in development and in building a more just and sustainable world community. To date, over 34 000 young people from Canada and around the world have participated in CWY exchange programmes in 67 countries. Amongst some of its popular and on-going programmes are the Youth Leaders in Action (YLA) programme and the Global Learners programme. The YLA programme is a unique CWY initiative funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). It comprises five different components: Youth Exchanges; Inter-Institutional Capacity Building; Sector Projects; the Youth Leadership Initiative (which provides seed grants to youth-led initiatives); and the Learning Forum. The YLA programme focuses on three key sectors: health, environment and gender equality. It aims to contribute to the realisation of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

Canada World Youth has a south-to-south volunteer exchange model in association with its partners in Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania as a component of the organisation’s Youth Leaders in Action programme. The Youth Leaders Action programme in these countries incorporates north-to-south, south-to- north and south-to-south exchanges. The north-south and south-north exchanges are between Canada (North) and countries of the Global South. The south-to-south exchanges are between two countries in the Global South. In all cases, exchanges takes place between two countries with groups of 18 young men and women, nine from each country. The exchange lasts six months, three months in each country. In southern and eastern Africa, CWY’s south-to-south exchange programmes are administered and facilitated by CWY partner organisations that include KENVO in Kenya, AJUDE in Mozambique, the Cape Town Volunteer Centre in South Africa and UVIKIUTA in Tanzania.

The exchange programmes take place between South Africa and Mozambique in southern Africa and between Tanzania and Kenya in eastern Africa. Participants from South Africa are paired with their counterparts from Mozambique while those from Tanzania are paired with the Kenyans. The partner organisation in each particular country selects the community where the team of youth live, volunteer and participate in community activities for three months. This gives the young volunteers an opportunity to explore a different part of the world and to gain a better understanding of their own countries at the same time.

CWY has developed a learning philosophy, which is integral to its programmes. It is based on what might be called the ‘four pillars’ of learning:  learning to be  learning to know  learning to do, and  learning to live together effectively.

3.2 SayXchange programme model SayXchange is a youth volunteer exchange programme developed by the Southern African Trust5 and implemented by AFS Interculture South Africa6 following the xenophobic attacks in South Africa during the first half of 2008. SayXchange crosses borders and aims to promote regional integration and a southern African regional identity amongst young people. This aim supports the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) vision of a common future for southern African people – a regional community that will ensure economic well-being, improved standards of living and quality of life as well as freedom, social justice, peace and security for all the peoples of southern Africa. This is anchored on the common values and principles and the historical and cultural affinities that already exist between the peoples of southern Africa.

The SayXchange youth exchange programme is a home-grown programme developed by Africans for Africans. It is a programme aimed at changing the volunteers’ lives, their families, and communities. The programme targets volunteers between the ages of 18 and 25 years who learn from other African countries and are expected to embrace diversity as well as oneness and interdependence of humanity.

The programme utilises a reciprocal volunteering approach in its south-to-south model of volunteering. Mozambican, Malawian and South African youth (aged 18-25) serve in one of the three countries that is not their own. The programme runs for five months and involves the placement of volunteers in community- based organisations (CBOs) in host country. Participants are required to develop a business plan for a civic engagement project that draws on what they have learned during their SayXchange experience and which they will initiate in their home country upon their return. They have to start thinking about this at the beginning of their service and have to develop a draft proposal within the first two months of service. The final proposal is due at the end of their term of service. Southern Africa Trust supports the participants through this planning process.

The exchange programme aims at:  Encouraging young people to lead;  Encouraging and supporting youth civic participation: the volunteers plan an activity or a project, which draws on what they have learnt. Each volunteer shares his/her plan with a local community once they return to their home country. This is aimed at ensuring valuable social returns.  Building a spirit of volunteerism and inclusiveness, which puts poor communities into the value chain, as well as increasing the understanding of the power of volunteerism as an important building block for strengthening civil society

5 The Southern Africa Trust is an independent non-profit agency that supports deeper and wider regional engagement to overcome poverty in southern Africa. It is aimed at changing the way regional governments make decisions about poverty by involving the affected citizens and their organisations in decision-making.

6 AFS Interculture South Africa is an international, volunteer-based, not-for-profit organisation with decades of global experience that provides intercultural opportunities to help people develop the knowledge, skills and understanding needed to create a more and peaceful world.

 Growing regional awareness on cultures and social issues in other countries in the region amongst young people who are emerging leaders in their communities with a view to encouraging utilisation of their values, skills and energy to stimulate positive change and further southern Africa regional integration.  Building a population of youth that give back to their communities.

3.3 Comparing Canada World Youth south-to-south and SayXchange programmes models The key features of the two programmes, whose impacts are the focus of the current paper, are captured in the table below.

Table 1 Comparison of key features of the SayXchange and CWY south-to-south youth exchange programmes

Programme feature CWY SayXchange

Period established The south-to-south exchange model is part The programme was established following the of the Youth Leaders in Action programme, xenophobic attacks in South Africa during the which was started in 2009. first half of 2008. Total number of youth 18 (i.e. nine pairs) 20 (10 from each country, but they are not involved per one round paired; the volunteers serve in one of the of exchange countries that is not their own). Countries involved South Africa & Mozambique; South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique Kenya & Tanzania. Administration The programme is administered and AFS Interculture in South Africa and AMODEFA facilitated by CWY’s partners: AJUDE in in Mozambique implement the programme. Mozambique, UVIKIUTA in Tanzania, Volunteer Centre in South Africa, and KENVO in Kenya. Exchange model Participants from South Africa are paired A reciprocal volunteering approach, which with counterparts from Mozambique while involves the placement of volunteers in those from Tanzania are paired with community-based organisations in the host Kenyans. Together, the paired participants country, to which they are sent. spend three months in each country. Programme objectives CWY is focused on providing high quality The programme aims to promote regional educational opportunities for youth in integration and develop a Southern African leadership for sustainable development. regional identity amongst young people. Programme duration 6 months 5 months Parties involved Volunteer Volunteer Host family Host family Placement organisation Placement organisation Technical experience No technical/work skills experience required No technical/work skills experience required

The key similarities between the two programmes are:  Both programmes are reciprocal exchange programmes.

 Both programmes involve implementing partners that are already active in the region and community- based partners that offer volunteer work placements.  Both exchange programmes have similar parties involved, that is, volunteers, host families and placement organisations.

The key differences between the two programmes are:  The SayXchange model is only for SADC countries while the CWY south-to-south youth exchange model includes eastern African countries (Kenya and Tanzania) and Southern African countries (Mozambique and South Africa). Tanzania is a member of both regional blocs – the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC).  In the CWY exchange programme, participants are paired and serve together in both the country of origin and the counterpart’s country; in the SayXchange programme participants are not paired and they serve in one country for the duration of the programme.  There are different programme objectives: SayXchange is focused more on promoting regional integration and a Southern African regional identity amongst young people, while CWY aims to promote global citizenship amongst youth.  Compared with CWY, SayXchange is responding directly to its environment: it was established following the 2008 xenophobic attacks in South Africa. The ‘SayXchange programme addresses the problems of xenophobia by increasing the understanding of the “other”, their different cultures, languages and ways of living’ (SAT and AFS Interculture, unpublished report). The CWY’s south-to- south programme on the other hand is an extension and refinement of its north-south reciprocal learning approach to volunteers, as well as of its Eco-leadership Program that was in place between 2004 and 2007.

3.4 SCORE/FK-Norway programme model SCORE is an international non-profit organisation specialising in community development through sport and recreation. It has partnered with FK Norway for the last ten years. SCORE developed a south-to-south youth volunteering programme that operates a youth exchange programme through local partnerships between its national offices in South Africa, Namibia and Zambia, each supported by the SCORE International office in Cape Town. Like CWY, the SCORE/FK-Norway programme is based on mutuality and reciprocity of the exchange.

FK-Norway’s south-to-south exchange programme involves a reciprocal exchange of young professionals. This approach was developed to facilitate the exchange of experience, knowledge and new skills that support institutional change processes in developing countries. The programme operates on the assumption that through the experience of different cultures, the young professionals develop new attitudes of tolerance and mutual respect for others. On this basis, it is believed that they become more resourceful in building peace and harmony in world communities.

According to FK-Norway (2009), benefits accrued from the exchange programme are not confined to the participant only, but are spread among participating organisations, communities and countries. In southern 12

Africa, the programme promotes regional integration amongst developing countries by presenting neighbouring countries with the opportunity to learn from each other and work more closely together.

3.5 VSO South-to-South programme model In the 1990s VSO developed the south-to-south volunteering initiative in an effort to break the stereotype that all volunteers come from the developed north (Fulbrook, 2007). In 1990, VSO set out on the path of recruiting people from countries in Asia (Philippines) and Africa (Kenya and Uganda) to which they had previously sent volunteers. In this process, VSO signalled an explicit recognition that people living in poor countries also had skills and experience to share with others across the world, and that people from poor countries had the right to participate in international volunteering. It was thought that their inclusion would enhance the richness of the volunteering community (Allum, 2007). The VSO South-to-South programme is not an exchange programme. Individual volunteers from a southern country (which includes Kenya, Uganda, India and Philippines) are recruited and sent to volunteer in another developing country. The VSO model emphasises learning, capacity enhancement and global education between participating volunteers, their host communities and partner organisations.

4.0 Findings from past studies on south-to-south youth volunteer exchange programmes

4.1 CWY Impact Assessment (2006 evaluation) In 2006 CWY undertook a ten-year impact assessment study in five countries: Benin, Thailand, Ukraine, Cuba and Canada. The study aimed to assess the impact of CWY programmes on participants and the society at large. Similar to the current study undertaken by VOSESA, the 2006 study used SAS2 methodology.

Findings from the 2006 study revealed that CWY’s core programme is achieving its three organisational goals with considerable success. The impacts on values and attitudes, and on skills and knowledge were the most important ones for both host community members and past participants. Lower impacts were revealed in career/studies and local global action. Past participants ranked the important impacts of the exchange programme as follows: 1. Values and attitudes e.g. open-mindedness, responsibility and equality – 26% 2. Knowledge/learning e.g. self knowledge, knowledge of another country – 23% 3. Skills acquired – 16% 4. Interpersonal relationships – 13% 5. Career/ studies – 13% 6. Local/global action – 10%.

The top impacts, as with past participants, were emotive and cognitive. In the case of host communities, however, interpersonal relationships came first, with values and attitudes a close second, tied with knowledge of another country. Host family members tended to select emotive impacts, while work placement supervisors selected cognitive impacts on skills or knowledge. The least selected ‘most important impacts’ were 13

local/global action. Community members reported that the programme has an impact that lasts beyond the three months of the programming phase. However, the findings also pointed to some critical limitations to the approach that was in place in the period that the study examined (1993-2003). The impact report therefore raised some provocative questions about how CWY might channel and maximise the community impacts during exchanges and once the volunteers have come home. CWY implemented most of the recommendations from this assessment, which resulted in CWY current approach implemented through the Youth Leaders in Action program.

4.2 Key findings from FK-Norway Study (2009) An external review was done for reciprocal youth exchange programmes in Nepal, Ethiopia and Norway. The study looked into FK-Norway’s north-south, south-to-south, youth and ESTHER programmes. Desk studies, interviews and a web-based survey were used for the study.

Based on the field interviews conducted, the south-to-south exchange programme reported to be the best instrument for transferring technical skills and expertise as participants spend less time adjusting to the culture and society, and can start working effectively shortly after being placed in a host organisation.7

Technical expertise was one of the major programme impacts reported at personal level by programme alumnae and in several cases, the expertise was transferred to institutions where volunteers served. This was through their contribution to the development of systems and mechanisms, and the enhancement of services.

Results from the private sector showed that the institutional outcome in the south-to-south private sector development was clearly stronger than the two north-south private sector partnerships. This is mainly because in the south-to-south programme, the planning process had been more thorough compared to that in the north-south programme, where the partners had not spent sufficient time jointly planning the outcomes of the exchange.

The study tracked participants’ satisfaction with FK-Norway programmes as a means of building their capacity. Southern partners were in general more satisfied with the capacity building in their institutions than the northern partners. However, it is not clear from the survey report whether the north-south or south-to-south programmes are perceived as most effective when building capacity in the organisations.

7 We take the view that this may not always be the case in regional exchange programmes because interviews with volunteers in the VOSESA study revealed that the volunteers experience culture shocks even in south-south exchange programmes, as will become clear in the analysis and findings section. This is because southern and eastern African countries are not homogeneous, as the FK Norway study seems to suggest.

4.3 AFS Interculture/Southern Africa Trust internal evaluation of the first cohort of SayXchange (unpublished) An unpublished report of internal assessments of the first SayXchange cycle cites participants who mentioned a number of benefits mainly related to knowledge gained, intercultural learning, attitude changes (including tolerance, sympathy and appreciation for the other), as well as skills gained. Such impacts are not only limited to participants. The project recorded wider multiplier effects because the SayXchange participants share and encourage their peers. The programme has also enhanced youth participation and civic engagement, the building of cohesive communities and fosters the empowerment of young people.

5.0 Emerging findings from the current CWY and SayXchange study This section presents the key findings of the study conducted by VOSESA. It begins by presenting a profile of the key participants of the study, and then moves to analyse impacts the two programme (CWY and SayXchange) on volunteers, host communities and families, and host and partner organisations. The table below summarises key details on participants.

Table 2 Profile of the study participants

Session Location of focus Number of Average age of Programme (CWY group session participants participants (in or SayXchange) years) Male Female Youth Volunteers- 1 Cape Town, SA 4 2 22 CWY-South Africa Youth Volunteers- 1 Maputo, MZ 3 2 24.5 CWY-Mozambique Host families-1 Cape Town, SA 2 8 53.4 CWY-South Africa Host families-2 Inhambane, MZ 0 8 33.6 CWY-Mozambique Host Organisations-1 Cape Town, SA 3 7 39.2 CWY-South Africa Host Organisations-2 Inhambane, MZ 5 1 37.2 CWY-Mozambique Youth Volunteers- 1 Kimende-Kenya 7 5 24.41 CWY Kenya Youth Volunteers-2 Chamazi- Dar TZ 4 8 25.91 CWY Tanzania Host families-1 Chamazi- Dar TZ 1 7 38.37 CWY Tanzania Host families-2 Kimende-Kenya 3 8 46.27 CWY Kenya Host Organisations-1 Chamazi- Dar TZ 8 - 34.75 CWY Tanzania Host Organisations-2 Kimende-Kenya 2 4 30.66 CWY Kenya Partner Organisation – 1 Kimende-Kenya 5 1 33.5 CWY Kenya Youth Volunteers- 1 Maputo 2 2 22.5 SayXchange Youth Volunteers-2 Johannesburg 3 23 SayXchange Host families-1 Maputo 1 1 33 SayXchange Host families-28 Johannesburg, SA 0 1 57 SayXchange Host Organisations-1 Maputo, MZ 3 24.3 SayXchange Host Organisations-2 Johannesburg, SA 2 34.5 SayXchange

8 We were forced to do a single interview with one SayXchange host family after it became impossible to get any other host families involved in a focus group.

Session Location of focus Number of Average age of Programme (CWY group session participants participants (in or SayXchange) years) Partner Organisation – 1 Maputo, MZ 1 1 31 SayXchange Partner Organisation – 2 Johannesburg, SA 2 27 SayXchange

Note: The mean age of volunteer participants in the study (in both projects) is 22.3 years

5.1 Impacts of CWY and SayXchange Youth programme on young volunteers The main impacts of the programme on volunteers were captured and measured using three key exercises.

Figure 1 Helper impact zones The first exercise used a Helper illustration of a human being with six different parts of the human body representing different impact areas as shown in the figure 1 alongside: the head for knowledge and learning; the heart for attitudes or values; one hand for skills; the other hand for friendships with people from another country; one foot for career steps (including studies); and the other foot for local or regional action taken after or during the programme (in the community the participant lives in, works/studies in, or in the wider community)9. Participants were asked to list two of the most important impacts the experience of participating in the exchange programme had or was having on them. Thereafter, participants were asked to select from the Helper the area that best corresponded to the impact they had described. A comparative analysis of the ensuing results shows that that the main impacts of the exchange programme on volunteers differed between the different volunteers from countries in the regions as shown by the table 3 below.

Table 3 Distribution of the impact cards by impact area

Helper impact area No./frequency of impact cards by % of total cards by impact area impact area Friendships across borders (emotive) CWY SA 5/10 50.0 CWY MZ 3/8 37.5 CWY TZ 2/24 8.3 CWY KEN 5/24 20.8 SAYXCHANGE SA 3/8 37.5 SAYXCHANGE MZ 2/8 25.0

9 The Helper image is a different visual representation of the ‘Socratic Wheel’, a tool that is used to evaluate and rate one or several elements or alternatives on multiple criteria. It is a foundational SAS2 tool for monitoring and evaluation of project goals, options to choose from, individual skills, leadership styles, products, events, etc.

Helper impact area No./frequency of impact cards by % of total cards by impact area impact area Attitudes/values (emotive) CWY SA 2/10 20.0 CWY MZ 1/8 12.5 CWY TZ 1/24 4.2 CWY KEN 5/24 20.8 SAYXCHANGE SA 1/8 12.5 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1/8 12.5 Knowledge/learning (cognitive) CWY SA 3/10 30.0 CWY MZ 2/8 25.0 CWY TZ 12/24 50.0 CWY KEN 3/24 12.5 SAYXCHANGE SA 2/8 25.0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4/8 50.0 Skills (cognitive) CWY SA 0/10 0.0 CWY MZ 1/8 12.5 CWY TZ 9/24 37.5 CWY KEN 7/24 29.2 SAYXCHANGE SA 1/8 12.5 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1/8 12.5 Career/Studies (Behavioral) CWY SA 0/10 0.0 CWY MZ 0/8 0.0 CWY TZ 0/24 0.0 CWY KEN 2/24 8.3 SAYXCHANGE SA 1/8 12.5 SAYXCHANGE MZ 0/8 0.0 Local/Regional Action (Behavioural) CWY SA 0/10 0.0 CWY MZ 1/8 12.5 CWY TZ 0/24 0.0 CWY KEN 2/24 8.3 SAYXCHANGE SA 0/8 0.0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 0/8 0.0

The section below presents the specific rationale given to support the different impact areas mentioned by the volunteers.

5.1.1 Impacts on friendships across borders As the table above shows, generally, while all the impact areas were mentioned in varying degrees in frequency across the various study sites and programmes, friendships across borders registered greatest impacts for volunteers in both Mozambique and South Africa for both the SayXchange and the CWY 17

programmes while knowledge and learning was registered as the most important impact in eastern Africa. Different reasons were given for the choice of each of the impact areas. A participant in the CWY South African volunteer focus group in Cape Town, for instance, stated the following in support of friendship across borders having the greatest impact on him: Out there, everything is very different from what it is here. That made me realize that I actually got people to help me and I got to appreciate this even more. As a group, we were 18. We had no family members with us and we had to face whatever situation we had relying on what we had, our counterparts whom we were going through this together.

Another added: Whenever I felt sad, I knew that my counterpart was my friend and she understood what I was going through and vice versa. So I have made some close friends and the bond we have, no one can take that away from us because nobody understand the things that we went through together: the happy times and the sad times and everything we had to do while away from home.

Mozambican SayXchange volunteers expressed similar views. For instance, a male Mozambican SayXchange volunteer mentioned that he was ‘able to learn a new language’ only because of his colleagues’ assistance. Besides, learning a new language, another SayXchange Mozambican volunteer added, enhanced interactions between volunteers and host communities. For this matter, he maintains close links with his South African colleague. A SayXchange South African volunteer pointed that the impact of living with a host family as well as pairing with a colleague was contributed greatly to social interactions that among other things led to ‘understanding a different culture and learning a language.’ The above captures the importance of such friendships for participant in these placements because of the closeness the programme cultivates among volunteers. Friendship bonds created from these interactions have continued to flourish. These bonds also form among volunteers from the same country as the training and orientation sessions provide avenues for people to get to know each other. A South African CWY volunteer in Cape Town highlighted this, mentioning that despite the fact he and another volunteer came from Khayelitsha, they never knew each other before the exchange programme. They met on their orientation day and have remained friends. As such, these friendships are not just across borders, but also apply to volunteers from the same country participating in the same programme at the same time. However, we were unable to establish which of these bonds were stronger (i.e. between South Africans themselves or between all programme participants from different countries).

5.1.2 Impacts on attitudes and values of volunteers In respect of attitude and values, one ex-volunteer in the Cape Town CWY focus group described his volunteering experience as the most significant part of his life thus far, because of he learnt that any challenge that faces one part of the human society or someone in society, can be overcome with someone else’s help. He thus came to appreciate the value of giving a helping hand to others in society and appreciated the need to understand people and empathise with them, rather than condemning them without even hearing them first. Moreover, volunteers from across the four countries and in both programmes described the impacts of the programme on them as being: experiences of self-discovery, valuing who they are, the development of self-

esteem, appreciation of other people (mentioned in all the study sites) and being positive and non- judgmental. For many, the experience changed the way they see other cultures: they came to appreciate others while being proud of their own cultures. A Mozambican CWY ex-volunteer arguably captured this best with his statement that the experience of having lived in a community with so much segregation, and having come from a place where people get along, he ‘understood why in South Africa, they behave in certain ways’. These things happened because, volunteers said, they had stayed with amazing people (host communities as well as counterparts), whom they now treat as their own families.

Volunteers also acquired self-confidence from their experiences in these programmes. As a female ex- volunteer with CWY in Cape Town stated: As a female, it is not easy to go to strange places, where you know nothing about the place or know no one and then you decide to go. Going for the exchange programme was very courageous and it had taken from me the phobia of travelling, of new places and of circumstances of living. I know I can live anywhere and take care of myself, and live with people from different backgrounds.

A Tanzanian CWY volunteer who expressed similar sentiments stated: Interacting with different people, male and female from different backgrounds, was important, because it showed me the world for what it is. I learnt how to be part of the group and how to be myself as well. I learnt how to disagree and still be respectful of other people’s ideas and how to compromise when convinced that the argument offered was a better one. I learnt how to accept and appreciate diversity, but learned especially from the experience of Kenya, the importance of ensuring diversity is not divisive and destructive, something we need to be careful about in Tanzania that it should never be allowed to happen.10

This clearly points to values gained from the volunteer experience and how the experiences have shaped the worldviews of these young people. The exchange programmes have taught these young people some valuable things. A Tanzanian CWY volunteer indicated how he had learnt from his Kenyan counterparts as well as from the host community: The value of time, of working hard, and of being aggressive. Kenyans seem to have more confidence than we have in Tanzania, and I learnt it is because of knowing one’s rights and not being afraid to stand for what is your right. This is the attitude, which will help make even our leaders accountable to people and not to themselves.

Another indicated that she learnt an important lesson about modern life: The importance of women’s participation in income generating activities as well as being serious about issues that affect their lives. I learnt from my Kenyan friends, a professional attitude and taking work seriously because of how work is valued there. In Kenya if you do not have a job it is very difficult to survive, but in Tanzania

10 Another Tanzanian CWY volunteer described the impact of the experience in terms of her ‘ability to get into a different setting like Kenya, and survive there. Before one travels, you have so many questions about what is waiting for you on the other end and there are many worries. But I learnt that we are all human beings, there are good and difficult people everywhere, there are good and difficult circumstances everywhere. What you find normal is strange to someone else, and what you find strange is normal to someone else. Accepting these facts of life and knowing yourself and what you want out of life, is key and you disregard everything else and focus on your mission.’

people still survive slightly ok without jobs and so people can sometimes have the attitude of not respecting work.

More importantly a male volunteer from Tanzania spoke about the impact of the CWY exchange on his patriotism: The programme made me patriotic and made me know my country better than ever before. I got to be proud of my country, especially our peace and unity across the nation, which is very different from what I experienced in Kenya, where people are very divided and there are always fear of political violence along tribal lines as aftermath of elections. The experience demonstrated to me why I should love my country, and why we should not take for granted what we have because it is the envy of others, an insight I could not have [had] but for the programme.

5.1.3 Impacts on knowledge and learning The most significant knowledge and learning impacts were closely related to changes in attitudes and values: most volunteers pointed to learning about other cultures including their history, languages and foods. The majority of volunteers and host families spoke of learning each other’s languages or improving the language skills of their host communities. Most Tanzanian volunteers for instance stated they were learning English or Kikuyu (the local language in the placement areas). For instance one stated: ‘I would hardly speak a word of English before the programme, but have improved in my English and am inspired to work hard to do better.’ Another added: ‘I managed to improve my language skills, in particular English. This was of great value to me because previously I had no confidence at all about speaking in English. Now although it is not perfect, I have the confidence to speak and accept with confidence when I am wrong and not feel embarrassed.’

Mozambican volunteers in South Africa as well as South African volunteers in Mozambique in both the SayXchange and CWY programmes shared their experiences of learning English and Portuguese respectively. A SayXchange Mozambican volunteer for instance noted: ‘I did not know how to communicate in the language of the host country and it was a big challenge to learn. It was enjoyable later on to be able to speak a little and participate.’ Another Mozambican SayXchange volunteer indicated that ‘learning a new language was part of the essence of the exchange experience.’ Yet another SayXchange volunteer indicated the need to strengthen the acquisition of skills especially because it seemed that volunteers were placed in organisations without prior consultation. Skills development was thus said to be a priority to ensure that volunteers could effectively participate better in organisational tasks.

There were also more fundamental life changing lessons that volunteers encountered in the course of their volunteer experience. A Mozambican volunteer in the CWY programme talked of how a visit to Robben Island for an African youth conference themed ‘Africa unite against xenophobia’ was a ‘great educational experience that left [me] with a lot of information on some of the things that unite Africans, as well as the challenges on the continent that need a united approach to confront.’ A Kenyan volunteer explained his selection of knowledge and learning as the most important impact as resulting from the various ‘guests invited to give motivational talks. Most gave us vivid examples. Through the motivational talks I came to realise what I want in life, never to give up, have hope and always go for my goals. This has helped me to go back to school and go for my goals.’ 20

One CWY ex-volunteer from Cape Town also related how he changed his attitudes about other African countries after going to Mozambique and learning first-hand about the situation there. He stated: I always had a mentality that Mozambique was a very poor country with a lot of malaria and of less importance when speaking of African countries. But when I got there, my impressions changed almost immediately because I had an opportunity to be with the people and learn more about their culture, their food, which is very different from us in South Africa. The whole experience took me to be like a South African in China. It caught me by surprise. I had my expectations to see an extremely poor country. But when I got to Maputo, I immediately saw a shopping mall. In this mall, I saw my favourite shop – Lacoste – and I also saw Shoprite [a supermarket chain] and I was like: these two investments, would not be here if Mozambique is poor.

Both programmes also served to expose volunteers to new cultures and ways of doing things. For instance, a Tanzanian CWY volunteer stated how he realised that: In Kenya they are even more traditional than in Tanzania. They are stricter and observe a lot of their traditions even in suburban areas like Kimende, which is not very different from Chamazi in Dar es Salaam, but here there is a mixture of all tribes in Tanzania, while there is just the Kikuyu in Kimende. Accordingly in Tanzania one might say they are from so and so tribe, but they live just normal life like everyone else, perhaps they might know of their tribal language, but do not even speak it [except] maybe in their houses. But there, there is a kikuyu way of life and so traditions are more important there and tribes matter in everything, with the language spoken even in the offices and public places.

Learning was not limited to culture alone. Mozambican volunteers in both the CWY and SayXchange programmes pointed to volunteers learning organisational skills, leadership, language, public speaking, social and technical skills that improved their confidence, built team-working ability and introduced them to conflict resolution. A Mozambican SayXchange volunteer for instance stated, ‘one of the most important impacts during the programme was the organisational. We learnt a lot during the program in the areas or organisation, leadership and in conflict resolutions.’ Another Mozambican SayXchange volunteer reported that she worked in an organisation where she performed tasks that she felt improved her knowledge of how to work in a project and how its run. Likewise, a Kenyan (CWY) volunteer stated that participation in the CWY south-to- south youth volunteer programme enabled her to be: Principled through interaction with other volunteers who made me learn that I can stand with my own principles even in relationships. Through education activity days we used to be paired to do group work and sometimes during free time we could discuss life issues with my fellow friends. In Tanzania, I had many friends including guys and I had to socialise with them. Some wanted to have a relationship with me, but I had to stand with what I say.

A Tanzanian CWY volunteer reported learning to be responsible in terms of handling issues even in the absence of her parents or other superiors. In the process, she also learnt of how to achieve objectives through the many activities assigned to her without being supervised, which in the process helped her both at home and at work. Another Tanzanian CWY volunteer argued that before participating in the programme he did not have knowledge of many important things and therefore did not pay any particular attention or felt that he had any role to play. As such, he stated:

The programme has been empowering. I now have a better understanding about things like the environment, the value of managing our environment and our roles at individual level. I am able to behave appropriately as far as the environment is concerned and influence others as well. This was because I did learn how to protect the environment, and how to educate and influence the community about the environment, how to take care of the environment and why we should care, including preventing diseases.

This testimony clearly points to the development of assertiveness for these young people. Such experiences greatly served to change the overall perspective these volunteers had of the host countries as well as on different issues in life.

For some volunteers, the experience exposed them to opportunities to learn skills and get a sense of a purpose in life that they would later utilise in their own lives as they seek to change the world in which they live. For instance, a Tanzanian CWY volunteer stated that the programme exposed him to opportunities to: Learn some skills such as teaching and presenting, which I never had before. But I also became aware of my circumstances, my surroundings, and myself in a way I have never considered before. This has given me a new perspective in life. Coming back from the programme, I was a different person, grown up, responsible, quite informed and with a different approach to life and things. For instance I am not complaining so much about situations, but trying to know my role and what I can do to change difficult situations.

5.1.4 Impact on skills The programme also had an impact on the volunteers’ skills and made them, in the words of one Tanzanian CWY volunteer, even more ‘proactive in pursuing the ambitions and goals for my life, which previously [I] had not really considered much and was moving with the tide of life.’ A Kenyan CWY volunteer stated how the experience has enabled him pursue a career in the agricultural industry: From my experience in the programme, I developed a huge passion for farming and specifically farming as a business. I have since undertaken various trainings on farming and farm management. This has given me a chance to work as a farm manager and hugely impacted on the various communities, individuals and institutions. This is because I got to volunteer with a youth group (ZAYEDESA), which practised farming in a very organised manner, which greatly contributed to my taking farming as a business opportunity.

A Tanzanian CWY volunteer related similar experiences: I am now involved in business and doing quite well. This is a benefit of participating in the programme because we were trained in a lot of things including writing projects and managing projects. This training was very significant to me because understanding and implementing it has enabled me to manage my business properly. I have proper records and can show business trend without any problem.

Many more volunteers expressed similar experiences. As seen from table 3 above, the highest distribution of skills development occurred among eastern Africa volunteers. The examples of what they learnt were quite interesting as the citations below confirm: I did learn about spice farming after visiting the spice farm in Zanzibar during the programme. In that visit I learn about different plants and fruits and how to manage them. Because of the knowledge I got from that visit, we have started a project called YLI where we have established a tree nursery, but in particular we have fruit plants

and know their requirements and guide people who buy them on how to best take care of them (Tanzanian CWY volunteer). I learnt a lot about waste management and composites, for instance how to separate the dusts, and how to make composts and how to apply prepared compost to trees or the farm. I also learnt how to recycle plastic materials in order to re-use instead of burning or burying them. In future I might have the ability to do something in waste management, though at the moment, I am using the knowledge more for our tree nursery and have not done much about recycling plastics materials (Tanzanian CWY volunteer).

A higher concentration of skills impact in the eastern Africa CWY programme, we suggest, must be understood from the perspective of the objectives of the partner organisation in Kenya-KENVO. KENVO’s work concentrates on environmental conservation and as the discussion on the impacts on host and partner organisations later in this report will show, all the host organisations as well as the volunteers work on these areas.

5.1.5 Impacts on career/studies Some volunteers were influenced through their interaction with other volunteers who would share what their interests were, and the areas they worked. This brought about new ideas about what to study and fields in which to work in future. SayXchange volunteers in Mozambique particularly mentioned this. Other examples of the programmes impacting on the careers of these volunteers include the Kenyan CWY volunteer pursuing a career as a farm manager; a Tanzanian CWY ex-volunteer who started spice farming; a South African CWY ex-volunteer who started an NGO focused on youth issues, and former volunteers working as programme staff in partner organisations. There was also the case of a CWY a Kenyan volunteer in Tanzania receiving teaching job offers in a host community school.

5.1.6 Impacts on local/regional action Volunteers in both programmes also pointed out that as a result of living in host communities, they saw how people make a difference in their communities through simple gestures. However no specific examples were given. Evidence for impacts on local action came mostly from learning experiences i.e. volunteers learnt new ways of doing things from seeing local action in the placement communities.

5.1.7 Conclusions on self-assessed impacts To conclude the findings on impacts on volunteers, participants were of the opinion that the impact of the programme is very dependent on what value a volunteer places on the programme. In turn, the value gained is dependent on many factors, including the volunteers’ age and the extent to which the planned objectives of the placement were accomplished. Most participants in both programmes felt that on the basis of their age, and the opportunities available to them prior to the volunteer exchange programme, they had not gained any specialised or professional training. As such, volunteers in both programmes cited the need for the programmes to prioritise skills building as being of greater value than any of the other benefits. Most of these volunteers did not have the opportunity to pursue further studies at the college or university level. Nonetheless, these exchange programmes gave volunteers added value through skills, exposure, a sense of meaning, and self-discovery or recognition of their own value to the society, and thus an entry point to an adult. Moreover, as a SayXchange ex-volunteer in Mozambique pointed out, ‘even with limited

communication abilities (due to language barriers), the overall impact of the programme was positive and the experience opened doors (for some) and broadened their horizons and view of South Africa.’ This suggests that the SayXchange programme is having desired impacts among young people. Nonetheless, more needs to be done by both programmes to ensure greater returns for investments in these programmes. The specifics of what needs to happen are covered under the recommendations section of this report.

5.1.8 Programme activities contributions to impact After establishing the different impact areas as outlined above, volunteers were asked to identify and rank two aspect of programme activities that contributed most to the impact identified. Both programmes comprised of the following predetermined activities: living with a host family, doing a community service project, pairing up/interacting with youth from another country (specific to the CWY programme), and receiving educational/training support. Volunteers were asked to place each of the activities identified on a Cartesian graph after ranking it as either first or second. This was in an effort to analyse the aspects of programme activities that contributed most to impacts. The distribution of the responses received from all study sites is captured in the table 4 below.

Table 4 The contribution of programme activities to impacts on volunteers

Programme activity Frequency Frequency ranked Total first and ranked first second second ranking

Living with host family CWY SA 1 2 3 CWY MZ 2 0 2 CWY TZ 7 7 7 CWY KEN 5 3 8 SAYXCHANGE SA 1 1 1 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1 1 1 Doing community service project

CWY SA 0 0 0 CWY MZ 1 0 1 CWY TZ 6 2 8 CWY KEN 3 1 4 SAYXCHANGE SA 2 0 2 SAYXCHANGE MZ 2 0 2 Being paired with another volunteer CWY SA 5 0 5 CWY MZ 3 0 3 CWY TZ 7 2 9 CWY KEN 4 4 8 SAYXCHANGE SA 1 1 2 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4 0 4 Receiving educational/ training support CWY SA 0 2 2 CWY MZ 2 0 2 CWY TZ 4 0 4 CWY KEN 12 2 14 SAYXCHANGE SA 2 0 2 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1 6 7 24

As seen from the table 4 above, there was no unanimity on which programme activity contributed most to impact. Indeed, in all the study sites for both programmes, all programme aspects were mentioned in varying degrees as leading to the impacts. Below, we summarise/analyse the key responses from various study sites.

a. Education/training Pre-departure is a critical component in international volunteer service programmes. The two programmes invest time in such trainings in varying degrees of intensity. The SayXchange programme for instance runs the following trainings/orientations: 1. A three-day ‘pre-departure orientation’ held in each of the countries involved in the SayXchange cycle. The pre-departure orientations are aimed at preparing participants for the exchange, briefing them about what is expected of them and what they, in turn, should expect. The orientation mainly focuses on helping the participants understand the different cultures they are likely to encounter and introduces them to possible coping mechanisms in the countries of their placement. They are also briefed on the key purpose of the programme in promoting regional integration and the development of a Southern African identity (Southern Africa Trust and AFS Interculture South Africa, undated). 2. A three-day ‘gateway orientation’ held in one country of the SayXchange cycle, just before the participants go on the exchange. The gateway orientation in an opportunity for participants from different countries to meet discuss various existing intercultural differences, how these shape the construction of the ‘other’ and the implications for the SayXchange programme (Southern Africa Trust and AFS Interculture South Africa, undated). 3. A three-day return orientation at or towards the end of the exchange. All the participating youth, host families and organisations are involved. This orientation gives participants an opportunity to share experiences, lessons learnt and the impact of the exchange on their personal lives (Southern Africa Trust and AFS Interculture South Africa, undated). 4. A one-day post-return orientation, which is an opportunity for youth participants to share their exchange experiences in their home countries. At this orientation, participants develop individual projects to implement in their communities. This allows for participants to showcase the various knowledge and skills gained, but also undertake leadership roles that strengthen their leadership skills. Additionally, they contribute to economic development and growth in their communities (Southern Africa Trust and AFS Interculture South Africa, undated).

Volunteer participants of both SayXchange and CWY programmes reported having learnt something valuable from the education and training days that impacted on them as shown by citations below: ‘More time is spent on trainings; for example you spend all day with guest speakers. You find yourself learning a lot from these educational bits’. (CWY volunteer, Kenyan) ‘I think most people tend to learn or to gain information through the coordinated orientation of the programme’. (CWY volunteer, Kenyan). ‘Education and training was beneficial, above all other aspects. Other components depend on others. For instance pairing is dependent on the person you are paired with or in the host family, the kind of family that hosts you. In that way the distribution reflects the different experiences individuals had with the family, or the

person they were paired with, and from the look of it, it seems not many people have many good [things] to say about those.’ (CWY volunteer, Kenyan) ‘Receiving education is given priority because of the mode of communication of now-a-days. Our generation is that which most of the people are learning much from formal education. That is why you find that, like for example, during the programme you’re told you are supposed to present something and you must because you have to be in the class and so you learn and you are able to say that you have learnt something specific. But in the family or partners, it is not easy to measure the extent of what you have learnt, although it can be a lot.’ (CWY volunteer, Tanzanian).

Nonetheless despite all the time and resources spent in the orientations, some volunteers felt the need for more training. For instance, SayXchange volunteers stated the need for better training: ‘It should have been more intensive. The education we had and the training could have complemented the background we came with. And there should be more consistency when referring the programme and what is to be expected from the programme.’ (SayXchange volunteer, Mozambican) ‘We did not have sufficient information about the host country or what kind of people to expect in their visit’. (SayXchange volunteer, South African)

b. Living with a host family In both programmes, volunteers live with host families in the host communities. Volunteers reported positive experiences of living with a host family and described how this aspect of the programme contributed to impacts, as the statements below demonstrate: ‘In Tanzania, there is rarely placement outside the partner organisation. For that reason, you spend most of the time within [the] organisation’s community, which is like a village. So you do not get to know much about life outside the community ... The host family are people of that community as well, so you get to know very well that community, but you get a feeling that because it is almost like an experiment village you do not get the opportunity to get a feel of the general life outside the village. For that reason, because in the village there are many projects and activities, you learn about those a lot and get to know people there very much; but outside the village, it is not very easy’. (CWY Volunteer, Kenyan)

‘Interacting with people who were different was a shock at first, but consequently [sic] resulted in great friendships’. (CWY volunteer, Mozambican)

‘I felt integrated into the organisations and the family where I spent my time’. (CWY volunteer, Mozambican)

‘Living with a host family was inspiring because I got to see how differently people live; I was had a great time in South Africa. The others were more focused on the projects and I think this family was an exception to what host families are normally like’. (SayXchange volunteer, Mozambican)

‘Interacting with other youths turned out to be one of the most significant parts of the programme’. (SayXchange Mozambican volunteer)

‘Living with a host family was a formidable experience, but the adaptation to new habits, food, education, and religion took time’. (SayXchange South African volunteer)

‘Living with host family and just being in Kenya gave us an insight that no books or class lectures will be able to teach as effectively. For instance, because I like business I learnt a lot from how Kenyans are conducting business by just hanging around business areas and observing. There is discipline in business and seriousness that I observed, but probably if someone gave a lecture they would have not mentioned or mentioned in a way that made sense to me. But I observed and learnt. So I think experience is [the] best teacher and living with the host community has taught us in a lot of ways that is why it scored high points as well’. (CWY volunteer, Tanzanian)

But some volunteers cited inadequate information or preparation for both the volunteer and the host families on what to expect. For instance, one volunteer noted that being ‘moved from one host family to another affected my opinion of the areas of impact’ (CWY volunteer, Mozambican). Another Mozambican in the SayXchange programme noted that ‘no information was provided about the host family he went to live with or the conditions to expect.’

c. Pairing with another young volunteer This activity was not a formal requirement for the SayXchange programme, but was specifically applicable to the CWY programme. However, volunteers in both programmes mentioned working with other volunteers though not necessarily paired. Volunteers pointed to experiences in being paired with other young volunteers. Generally, pairing contributed to mutual learning and a greater interaction and understanding of their partners. South African SayXchange volunteers added that they further ‘appreciated the levels of hardships and the autonomy of local volunteers and people in general’ but more so, admired their resilience. For a Kenyan volunteer, because the programme is designed in such a way that they are paired, they ‘start working with that person and as time goes a conflict may arise between the partners. From such conflict, you learn that there are different kinds of people [who] think differently, and maybe these people cannot just agree with you.’

Though not paired, working together with other volunteers had its benefits. A Mozambican SayXchange volunteer for instance stated: ‘being with other volunteers was very insightful; it was more about being exposed [to their culture] and exposing our culture too. Most volunteers got to really experience the interaction and exchange of knowledge during the programme.’ A similar experience was reported by a Tanzanian CWY volunteer who said: ‘pairing and interacting with our counterparts allowed us to know so much about Kenya, about their way of life and to learn good lessons from them. For instance they work hard, they have confidence, they know how to struggle and they are not shy if there is something they want. These are good things learnt.’ Another Tanzanian CWY volunteer added: ‘pairing and interacting gave us a yardstick to compare ourselves and look at where our colleagues are. I think in this regard we realise that there is great contribution from pairing, …we had the opportunity of exploring Kenya through our friends.’ These responses suggest that the peer group experience was valued by the volunteers across both the CWY and SayXchange programmes – not only for what was learnt through positive engagement, but also for the insights gained about human relations through more challenging personal interactions.

d. Doing a community service project Doing community service was was widely acknowledged as one of the programme activities contributing to impacts in various areas. A Mozambican SayXchange volunteer said that community projects taught him lot 27

about people in places and issues he did not expect. For instance he stated that by running a poetry session in prison, he got access to a prison for the first time. Another SayXchange South African volunteer indicated that through participation in a community service project, he got greater insights into ‘aspects of the social Life in Mozambique, such as new methods of community building and creative ways of generating an income in the informal sector.’ A Kenyan CWY volunteer indicated: ‘I was adventurous. I went out, and from involvement in a community project, I learnt more skills.’ A Tanzanian CWY volunteer stated: ‘doing [a] community project was practical and therefore easily understood and enjoyable.’

5.1.9 Conclusion on programme activities contributions to impact Volunteers in all study sites and for both programmes expressed a general sense of appreciation for the programmes as they enjoyed the different exposures that the programmes afforded them, which broadened their scope outside home communities and countries in general. On the whole Tanzanian CWY volunteers revealed that programme activities that were practical and provided first-hand experience than abstract education support had greater. This suggests that empirical demonstrations were particularly useful to these volunteers as they fostered learning.

However, volunteers in both programmes pointed out a number of programme aspects that needed improvement. For instance, volunteers in Kenya and Tanzania pointed out the need to broaden the sectors in which volunteers could work other than just concentrating on environmental conservation in Kenya. This suggests that a broadened focus could be able to offer greater opportunities to volunteers. The length of the exchange programmes was also mentioned as needing revision because in ‘six months you cannot really master a skill. It is really a short time’ (Kenyan CWY volunteer). The age of the volunteers was another matter mentioned as needing a re-examination. For the volunteers, the 18 to 24 year age range is the time when they decide their future career paths. If the programme thus hopes to have maximum impact on young people’s careers, it would need to reconsider the age ceiling in particular. Perhaps, as one Kenyan volunteer indicated, the programme needs to recruit volunteers based on a genuine interest to participate rather than in terms of age limits.

In the case of the CWY programme, volunteers felt there was a need for the placements in the two countries to be aligned because, as one Kenyan volunteer pointed out: In the course of the exchange when one is in Tanzania and then we come back to Kenya, you find that you do different things. For instance I might have started gaining interest on something in Tanzania, but when I come back to Kenya, there is no continuation and I am placed in a completely different [sphere of activity]. In Tanzania for instance, I was dealing with a clinic and here I am placed in a school and doing something completely different. If it was something continuous, or took into account the interest of participants, so much would have been accomplished after the programme and so many projects would have been initiated by all these youths who have attended the exchange, if only something concrete was done during the programme, because you will continue with the same passion, even in the community. You will come back and tell people you have come from Tanzania, and what you learnt there and would want to replicate it at home.

Another Kenyan volunteer pointed to the need for education on explicit political issues to be provided in the pre-departure preparation when he argued: 28

It is important for CWY to tell us explicitly what their expectations are. That would help us to be more open- minded and mindful of the essential programme objectives. If we are not open-minded we cannot learn anything out of this programme. If you look superficially it might seem as if they are not helping us much as young people, but if you remember, in 2007 we fought in Kenya along tribal lines... We do not want this to happen again. The programme helps us interact with other people from different areas and different cultures. This way, you get to understand that other people too have a right to live their own way of life the way he/she sees it necessary. And when you come back to Kenya you start seeing things beyond tribal demarcations. If CWY can give [an] indication of the essence of the programme, it will be appreciated more as people consciously make efforts to learn and to assimilate the good things and transmit them in the community more aggressively. For instance, on the issue of peace, we could have learnt more effectively how Tanzania managed to create national unity and greatly reduced tribes as a factor for allegiance or privilege. If you look at Tanzania, all the Presidents so far have come from not very big or influential tribes, the current President is from a very small tribe in Tanzania, and that did not hinder him from gaining national support.

The above citation suggests a level of consciousness that perhaps the programme assisted generating, although not aggressively. It also suggests that young people exposed to environments where there is appreciation of differences are most likely to embrace diversity and be more accommodating. But the programme can indeed even do more by exposing these young people not just to their familiar socio-cultural environment, as is the case in Kenya where volunteers are actually recruited from Kijabe environs and are placed within their own community. Specifically, a Kenyan CWY volunteer echoes this, indicating that rather than being placed in areas that they already know in their own country (i.e. their own communities), they should be offered an opportunity to volunteer in another community. This would go a long way to building a common national identity. One Kenyan CWY volunteer indeed pointed to this aspect as a constraint to potential impacts by indicating: ‘I am not sure it really helped me. A family just about 500 meters away from my home hosted me. Although I learnt from the other family, it is not the way I could have learnt from a family far away from here’ (CWY Kenyan volunteer). Another volunteer argued along the same lines, indicating the need for effective transmission of skills, attitudes, values and perspectives. As such, they recommended that CWY should include ‘a strong mentorship component in the programme, to nurture and shape participants for best realisation of programme objectives, instead of assuming [that] the activities and being in a different place will do the trick in themselves’ (CWY Kenyan volunteer).

Such critique was never highlighted in any of the other CWY study sites (i.e. South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique). Perhaps the dynamics of ethnicity highlighted in the Kenya case are different in the other participating countries. However, the SayXchange volunteers in both South Africa and Mozambique pointed to areas that also needed attention with a view to improving programme impacts. South African SayXchange volunteers pointed that, overall, the programme impacts were not very positive because they did not receive the expected aspects of life in another country. The South African SayXchange volunteers also concluded that consistency is essential for running such programmes in both exchange countries (South Africa and Mozambique). There is also a need to establish a forum that can deal with occurrences and immediate concerns on the ground and a forum to deal with immediate concerns. Such forums would ‘address loopholes in programme activities such as a general lack of organisational support [placement organisations], and

monitor progress to ensure volunteer satisfaction, and meet programme objectives and their expectations’ (SayXchange South African volunteer).

5.1.10 Programme impacts on specific aspects of volunteers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes The second key exercise for the volunteers participating in the evaluation was to rate the programme’s impact on six specific aspects of the knowledge, skills11 and attitudes they acquired. The six impact areas were: 1. Communication skills impact e.g. language skills, cross-cultural communication skills, active listening skills, public speaking skills, etc.; 2. Technical skills impact e.g. farming skills, computer skills, teaching skills, etc.; 3. Organisational skills impact e.g. planning, team work, leadership, facilitation, mediation, etc.; 4. Knowledge of host country e.g. knowledge of history, culture, geography and politics; 5. Knowledge of development issues such as knowledge of HIV/AIDS dynamics in host country, knowledge of sources of regional conflict, knowledge of development challenges in host country, knowledge on gender dynamics in host country; 6. Attitude towards the host country e.g. feelings of solidarity, respect for the national culture, appreciation of national contributions, etc.

The rating exercise was aided by a Socratic wheel displayed below.

11 The term ‘skill’ here refers to a concrete ability to do something, which is not to be confused with attitudes towards something. For example, a feeling of solidarity is an attitude, while knowing how to speak another language, grow a crop, or plan a project are skills.

Figure 2 Socratic wheel assessing knowledge, skills and attitudinal impacts on volunteers.

The table below summarises the key findings from this exercise.

Table 5 Impact ratings for knowledge, skills and attitudes

Programme impacts Average rating Highest rating Lowest rating Communication skills CWY SA 4.5 5 4 CWY MZ 3.75 5 3 CWY TZ 2.9 5 2 CWY KEN 4.7 5 3 SAYXCHANGE SA 3 4 2 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4.5 5 3 Technical skills

CWY SA 3.33 5 2 CWY MZ 3.25 4 1 CWY TZ 3.75 5 2 CWY KEN 3.3 5 1 SAYXCHANGE SA 3 3 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4.45 5 4 Organisational Skills CWY SA 4.2 5 2 CWY MZ 4.25 5 3 CWY TZ 3.9 5 2 CWY KEN 4.5 5 3 31

SAYXCHANGE SA 1.3 3 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4.5 5 4 Knowledge of host country CWY SA 4.2 5 3 CWY MZ 3.75 5 2 CWY TZ 3.7 5 2 CWY KEN 3.75 5 2 SAYXCHANGE SA 3.3 4 3 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4.75 5 4 Knowledge of development issues in host country CWY SA 4 5 3 CWY MZ 3.75 5 3 CWY TZ 3.9 5 2 CWY KEN 3.5 5 0 SAYXCHANGE SA 1.6 3 1 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4 5 3 Attitudes towards host country CWY SA 4 5 3 CWY MZ 3.5 4 2 CWY TZ 3.5 5 1 CWY KEN 4.08 5 2 SAYXCHANGE SA 3.3 5 2 SAYXCHANGE MZ 5 5 5

As already pointed out, volunteers gained skills in communication, including other languages, presentation, and public speaking (this was mentioned in Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique by both CWY and SayXchange programme volunteers). Volunteers also gained knowledge of their host country on different issues as well as knowledge of development issues such as HIV AIDS, politics, and history of their host countries. A Mozambican SayXchange volunteer for instance indicated that because of working in the host community, he learnt about their host communities experiences, problems, and conflicts. Cross-cultural learning was also reported in all the study sites. Overall, the participants in both programmes thus reported a positive impact on the volunteers in all participating countries. The results demonstrate that the impact was well rounded since the volunteers could relate to aspects of most impact areas being assessed and felt that the gained experience about many aspects of volunteerism. 5.2 Programme impacts on host families and communities The impacts of the programme on host families and communities were captured utilising a Helper similar to the one used to capture programme impacts on volunteers. The table 6 below summarises the results of the key findings.

Table 6 Programme impacts on host families

Helper impact area No./frequency of impact cards by impact area % of total cards by impact area Friendships across Border (emotive) CWY SA 5 50 CWY MZ 3 37.5 CWY TZ 2 8.3 CWY KEN 5 20.8 SAYXCHANGE SA 0 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 2 25 Attitudes/values (emotive) CWY SA 2 20 CWY MZ 1 12.5 CWY TZ 1 4.2 CWY KEN 5 20.8 SAYXCHANGE SA 2 33.3 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1 12.5 Knowledge/learning (cognitive) CWY SA 3 30 CWY MZ 2 25 CWY TZ 12 50 CWY KEN 3 12.5 SAYXCHANGE SA 0 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 4 50 Skills (cognitive) CWY SA 0 0 CWY MZ 1 12.5 CWY TZ 9 37.5 CWY KEN 7 29.2 SAYXCHANGE SA 3 50 SAYXCHANGE MZ 1 12.5 Career/Studies (Behavioral) CWY SA 0 0 CWY MZ 0 0 CWY TZ 0 0 CWY KEN 2 8.3 SAYXCHANGE SA 0 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 0 0 Local/Regional Action (Behavioral) CWY SA 0 0 CWY MZ 1 12.5 CWY TZ 0 0 CWY KEN 2 8.3 SAYXCHANGE SA 0 0 SAYXCHANGE MZ 0 0

On the whole, the findings indicate that host families and communities in both programmes benefit directly through extra income, cross-cultural and language learning. The specifics of each of the impact areas (attitudes and values, knowledge and learning, skills, friendships across borders, career steps and local or regional action) are analysed in the sub-sections below. The most common impact mentioned by host families in all the study sites was financial benefit, as a Tanzanian host family indicated: ‘hosting has helped me financially, because the supporting funds I get help all of us in the house not only volunteers; so by getting that support and adding my own money, we are able to increase our income and afford things better than without that support.’ This seems a surprising finding for CWY, as it has never considered the relatively low stipend provided to host families to be of much significance in host communities.

5.2.1 Programme impacts on friendships across borders Just like the volunteers, host families also made very good friends across borders both with the volunteers and their parents. Kenyan and Tanzanian host families in the CWY programme were particularly specific on this outcome, stating that this happened because parents would usually follow up on their children’s actions and in the process they would get in touch with the host families through cell phones. A SayXchange programme host family in South Africa mentioned the strong bonds that were formed, resulting in the volunteers learning skills that they could use at home on their return. Also mentioned by a SayXchange programme host family in South Africa was the strong bond formed between the host family and the two volunteers hosted as they got along well with kids in the host family. ‘They were like siblings.’ The impact on friendships across borders was mentioned in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique in both the SayXchange and CWY programmes. An added benefit was that these friendships promoted new friendships at local level, as stated by one Kenyan host family respondent: ‘Through this programme, we have made new friends even here in our community. For example, people who have volunteers, it has brought us together as we share something and we are in this project together. We have become friends through this project … in the community, we have made friends because people are interested to understand how it is that you have someone from another country coming to stay in your house, and how is it like, and things like that.’

5.2.2 Programme impacts on host communities attitudes and values Generally, host families and communities learn from the behaviour and actions of volunteers involved in the exchange programmes, which positively impacts on their attitudes and values especially in regard to tolerance and empathy with people who are ‘from other cultures, who are different, have different needs and diets and from other cultures. This is specifically so as through hosting volunteers, host families learn of complexity of humanity and how to handle diversity’ (Cape Town CWY host family participant). A participant in the Kenyan host family focus group specifically mentioned that the volunteers also taught local communities the value of volunteering, something they did not know about before. She gave an example of volunteers clearing and pruning a church compound at Kimende Catholic Church: This is something very good and we should have thought of [it] before. But now, from this learning, a lot more people and youth in the church come out and do voluntary work in the church. May be this will inspire people and youth volunteering will change the community. If you volunteer, you must be good hearted, and if our youths start volunteering they will be good hearted and they will make the community a good place to live (CWY host family participant, Kenya).

Similar sentiments came from a Cape Town CWY host family focus group participant who indicated: ‘it is quite seldom for the public to volunteer in the organizations. By volunteers offering a helping hand, they showed initiative and motivated other people to do the same.’

A participant from a Tanzania host family focus group attributed the positive impacts in attitudes and values to the fact that most volunteers have very good discipline throughout the time they live with them. This has shown host families that a volunteer is not a burden, but can be a good thing for you and people in your family, because they are good role models. A CWY host family focus group respondent in Cape Town, South Africa, similarly stated: ‘they [the volunteers] are a help to the community and bring hope to our youth that is disadvantaged because of alcohol, HIV and unemployment.’

The exchange programme has ‘encouraged multiculturalism as the community has learnt that it is possible to be in an environment with mixed races and cultures’ (Cape Town CWY host families’ focus group participant). Indeed, as one SayXchange host families participant indicated, the hosting experience brought with it ‘conflicts, but it is the ability to resolve such conflicts that reflected just how much they had been learning from each other.’ A Kenyan host family talked of Tanzanian volunteers teaching children in host families good values of respect and honouring parents. They also learnt that in Tanzania people respect each other so much that despite two prominent religions being present in that country –Muslims and Christians– there is no conflict and people live harmoniously in Tanzania. Indeed, as stated by one Kenyan host family focus group participant, this emanates from Tanzania’s embrace of one language–Kiswahili –that has acted as the glue that binds people together. This observation corroborates what Tanzanian volunteers stated about the Tanzanian way of relating to each other, especially communicating only through Kiswahili.

The interaction of volunteers and host families also manifested through host families improving their Kiswahili ability: ‘When they come, we learnt speaking Swahili, and I think my Swahili is better because I speak more frequently with the volunteers in Swahili and they tell you what you are saying correctly and when it is wrong.’ Similarly, participants of the CWY host families focus group in Cape Town pointed: ‘In some of our families we were not used to speaking English 24/7, but by them being around, it has improved our speech, grammar, and pronunciation because we speak English on a regular basis.’ A Mozambican SayXchange host family participant indicated learning English and teaching Portuguese was central as he felt that that is how friendships would be cultivated.

On the whole, reciprocity was therefore evident in host families in all study sites who benefited, for instance, from the volunteers teaching English to the host family children and helping them with their homework every day. According to one host family respondent, this has made his children better students: ‘my children are more confident in speaking now, because they talk to them and train them’ (Kenyan host family).

5.2.3 Programme impacts on host communities knowledge and learning As with the volunteers, there was a lot of cross-cultural learning among the host families, especially around food preparation and getting to understand certain cultural modes of dress or behaviour. A South African CWY 35

host family participant for instance stated: ‘Thanks to this programme we are able to do many things in the arts and culture. We are able to make earrings, bags and other useful crafts.’ A Kenyan host family described how they learnt to prepare many different kinds of rice dishes like ubwabwa and pilau as well as maize flour: ‘I have learnt something about their customs and traditions and how to prepare their food. I know for example how to use coconut for rice and for stew, which I did not know before. Coconut milk you can use in making food different, even in sweet potatoes, and it is very good.’ Moreover, in regard to food preparation, some participants from the Kenyan CWY host family focus group stated they had ‘learned that with just the same things you afford in everyday life, you can prepare different kinds of dishes and not eat the same thing every day. If it is cassava, you can prepare it differently and enjoy because Tanzanians seem to have a lot of different ways of preparing food.’ Similar impacts were registered in Mozambique in the CWY programme with a host family focus group revealing that some participants learnt how to make pancakes.

With regards to cross cultural learning a Kenyan host family respondent indicated that the experience of living with the Tanzanian volunteer enabled them to learn about Tanzanian culture: We have different ways of eating, preparing food, even dressing. I think I have learnt how important khanga is for women in Tanzania and it is a symbol for female and human dignity. They will hardly go anywhere without it. Even when they are going for something formal, they will have khanga in their pouch and I understand now how it can come handy. For example if someone got sick, was involved in the accident, they will use khanga to cover you, or give you assistance. Or for women if you are in some place and your periods started unexpectedly, khanga is going to preserve your dignity.

Other subtle impacts were also mentioned, such as improving the ambience of the house/home because of the hosting experience: ‘I have worked to bring some changes in the house as well. You know, when you have a guest, things become different and improved a bit. Hosting volunteers has improved the atmosphere in the house and motivated us to improve.’

‘These are good experiences and it The hosting of volunteers also had an empowering impact showed me that, human beings are one especially on values and attitudes resulting from new knowledge family, we can all coexist and live gained from these experiences. Host families in both the Kenyan harmoniously irrespective of our cultural and Tanzanian focus groups mentioned being exposed to or family backgrounds.’ knowledge on issues about Tanzania. A Tanzanian CWY host family participant indicated that through the CWY programme, Tanzania host family respondent, CWY programme they lived harmoniously as a family with people from another nation. These they said are ‘good experiences and it showed me that, human beings are one family, we can all coexist and live harmoniously irrespective of our cultural or family backgrounds.’ Similarly, a CWY Cape Town host family participant indicated that the experience of hosting volunteers had taught her that human beings have a responsibility to build relationships with new unknown people and to love each other. These attitudes and behaviour are good ingredients for building confidence in direct people-to-people interactions that can go a long way towards fostering regional integration.

Most host families also indicated that they had benefitted from the programme as they now know how to treat other people’s children as their own. This was mentioned in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique in the CWY programme. For instance, a Tanzania host family focus group participant stated that they had benefitted because they are now: Able to communicate and live with people of a different background. I have developed patience and interest to know how they live and what things to learn from them and what they need to change if they want to fit in our lives. So, I have also learnt how to communicate kindly but firmly with them, as a parent without thinking much that they are not my children or they are just volunteers. They are living in my house and I treat them as my own children (CWY host family, Tanzania).

The experience of having contributed to the moulding of young people’s behaviour and upbringing is also cited as beneficial to host families: For me it was useful to contribute in shaping these young people in becoming responsible adults. … I have also had the opportunity to shape and change their behaviour, such that they agree that they have left as better people than they came. Some, for instance, were not used to coming home early, or to clean the house and do house chores; some were young, but used to drink alcohol and get drunk. These are behaviours that are unacceptable in my house and they had to adhere to them. So through speaking to them and making them understand, and talking about life and the essence of the exchange programme, most were able to listen and we coped well (CWY host family, Tanzania).

Participants in all four countries in both the CWY and SayXchange programmes pointed to having learnt about having patience and nurturing children: ‘I have young children and I think hosting volunteers has helped me know how to be a better parent and guide children’ stated one Tanzanian host family focus group participant. A South African host family focus group participant stated: ‘As a host mom I have come across different people who have different needs and diets, so I’ve learnt [about] complexity and how to handle diversity.’

Despite all the positives, a participant in the Johannesburg SayXchange host family interview pointed to some administrative challenges in the programme when she stated: ‘I found myself helping the volunteers a lot, with food etc. but at a later stage the organisation provided money for them, but they had to ask for the money. The organisation did not make any provision to help support the two volunteers. I could not support them as much as I would have liked to. Sometimes they wanted to go out to places, but they could not do that because I did not have money to give them. There would be interesting activities and they did not have money to board the taxi and such things.

5.2.4 Programme impacts on host communities skills As shown in Table 6, host communities gained skills. These were mainly to do with new cooking styles as well as how to cook new foods (mentioned in the CWY host families focus groups in Mozambique, Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania). A Cape Town host family focus group participant for instance indicated that the volunteers from Mozambique brought valuable experiences and skills that they imparted on host communities. This participant specifically mentioned having learnt the skill of preparing Mozambican dishes. A Mozambican host family focus group participant indicated: ‘we learn a whole lot of new things. For example I did not know how to make pancakes but now thanks to the programme I know, the same to chocolate and banana cake.’ Another added that because of the CWY exchange programme, ‘community members are now 37

able to do many things in the arts such as make earrings, bags and other useful crafts’ which they sell for extra income. In Tanzania, a host family focus group participant indicated the reciprocal nature of acquisition of skills by both volunteers and host communities when she indicated: ‘from these volunteers, I have learnt how to steam food until it is properly cooked. This is something I did not know before. They also taught me how to prepare their [Kenyan] traditional dishes as I taught them about our dishes.’ In Kenya, a CWY host family focus group participant indicated how she learnt how to prepare different rice, sweet potatoes and stew dishes from the volunteers.

5.2.5 Programme impacts on host families/communities Career/Studies Only Kenyan CWY host families focus group registered impacts on host communities careers and studies. However, no specific examples were given. The dearth of impacts on host families in this area is perhaps captured by the socioeconomic demographics of the host families in Kenya: ‘most of us here are just simple farmers, we have been farming all our lives and that is why there is nothing much to say of career or studies. Also when you look at us, we are elderly people and past time to get concerned about career or about studying.’

5.2.6 Programme impacts on host families/communities in local action Like careers and studies, only Kenya registered impacts in this area. The specific reasons given overlapped with the reasons advanced for changes in attitudes and values. Specifically, due to volunteer actions at keeping the church compound well maintained, there were triggers for local community to be engaged in similar initiatives at the local level.

5.2.7 Conclusion on programme impacts on host families To conclude, participants in both programmes and in all study sites reported gains stemming from the interaction they had with the participants and the changes they saw happening in the communities’ values and attitudes, especially towards people from other cultures or other races.

The CWY host families participants interviews in Cape Town, South Africa, noted that facts like the use of English language in everyday life, living with a white teenager and teach him/her to make his/her bed every morning or learning the way of life of a vegetarian person had a greatest impact on communities that regard themselves as marginalised and with a past of racial tension.

In Inhambane, Mozambique, CWY participants highlighted the opportunity given by the initiative to have people from other parts of the world staying with them and living the same way they did. For them the experience was very different from their usual lives, one that they could never have thought of before it happened. Hence the biggest emphasis was put on the creation of friendship across borders, because most of the participants reported regular contact after the participant’s departure. The programme had less impact, according to participants, on their learning or change in attitudes, except for impacts related to ‘friendship with white people’ which falls under the category of friendships across borders. The learning of a new language (i.e. English) or making crafts were extensively referred to, but were also of less impact in comparison with the relationships established.

For SayXchange host families in Mozambique, friendships across borders stood out as a very important impact because it is the essence of the part they play in the programme. They felt that they interacted with the volunteer on a friendship level in order to extract the best they can from the experience. Learning English and teaching Portuguese was central for one participant as he felt that that is how friendships were cultivated. Although the second respondent alerted us to the fact that conflict is very real, he stressed that it was the ability to resolve such conflicts that reflected just how much they had been leaning from each other.

For the CWY programme in Tanzania, participants generally saw establishing friendships with people from another country as the most notable and important impact they could identify from the programme. Other significant impacts included the host families getting to understand the culture and way of life of people from another country, valuing the fact that the volunteers learnt Swahili and understood its importance for national unity in Tanzania, and learning from the volunteers’ value system, which reflected humbleness and respect. For women, learning about new dishes and how to prepare meals from the dishes of Tanzania from the volunteers was noted as interesting and of good benefit. Participants were of the opinion that the programme was particularly valuable in its promotion of volunteerism, with the volunteers serving as ambassadors of those values. In addition, the volunteers were seen as role models for young people in the community and in the families. Accordingly, the programme is perceived as having The host families who participated in important lessons and values that can be fostered more widely in the focus groups regarded the the society, trickling down to young people and transforming the programme as a very exciting community for the better. initiative. It shaped relationships between community members in a The participants felt that the programme is very relevant to the new way and changed their community because, as a village that intends to be a model village perceptions about people from for progress, environmental conservation and comprehensive abroad. Participants cited many social service delivery, there are a lot of things to do, and examples of instances that would never have happened if it were not for volunteers do not go to placements elsewhere; they work on those this project. initiatives in UVIKIUTA. Furthermore, the families benefited from various services rendered by volunteers and benefited from the financial support they received to support the volunteers. The most important impact was the change in attitude, behaviours and perspective among the volunteers and the reciprocal impact between host families and volunteers.

The host families who participated in the focus groups regarded the programme as a very exciting initiative. It shaped relationships between community members in a new way and changed their perceptions about people from abroad. Participants cited many examples of instances that would never Organisations that had have happened if it were not for this project. been partners for longer periods of time 5.3 Programme impacts on host and partner organisations felt that the In order to determine the programmes’ impact on the effectiveness of host and programme registered partner organisations, representatives from these organisations who greater impact on their participated in the focus groups were required to rate impacts in terms of operations in the four impact areas.

effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and financial viability of the organisation, using the SAS2 tool known as the Socratic Wheel presented below.

Figure 3 Socratic wheel assessing effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and financial viability on host organisations

As can be seen in the figure above, a 5-point scale was used where 1 represented no impact and 5 the greatest impact level. Overall the CWY partner organisations in Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania registered satisfaction and higher levels of impact than host organisations across board.12 Nonetheless the variations in

12 The partner organisation in Mozambique, AJUDE, did not take part in the interviews. In Tanzania, volunteers are placed in sector projects of UVIKUITA, which serve as work placement for volunteers because they are not placed outside the organisation. For SayXchange, only representatives of one partner organisation (LoveLife) took part in the focus groups despite numerous attempts on the part of VOSESA to reach other partners. As such, the results may somewhat reflect only minority view. 40

the level of impact rating between host and partners organisations across both programmes were not significant. The lower scores given by host organisations were usually attributed to the amount of time an organisation had been involved in the programme. Organisations that had been partners for longer periods of time felt that the programme registered greater impact on their operations in the four impact areas.

5.3.1 Programme impacts on effectiveness of host and partner organisations Participants from the host organisation focus groups in both Kenya and Tanzania had an average rating of the CWY south-to-south exchange programme’s impact on their effectiveness at 4 out of 5, indicating that the programme had a highly significant impact on the host and partner organisations. The participants supported these ratings with various reasons. For partner organisations in both Kenya and Tanzania, the key reason for the high rating was alignment between the mission of the organisations and the CWY south-to-south programme goal. For instance KENVO stated that that their strategic objective is to empower the community on conservation issues, in particular women, youth, students and religious communities. UVIKUITA in Tanzania, on the other hand, stated that their strategic mission is to empower the youth. They have strongly pushed their programme agenda in this regard, that they now ‘have youths whose life has changed because of participating in the programme. These youths have become ambassadors to other youths and in their communities. They have been empowered and are able to organise community-based activities to influence the local situation.’ The participants gave examples of young people who started youth organisations to promote environmental protection and to inspire and influence other youth in the community to become involved in the projects on a volunteering basis. Indeed this information is corroborated by the interviews of the youth volunteer participants in Tanzania as seen earlier in this report. This impact was not limited to Tanzania only. Study sites in Kenya and South Africa registered similar initiatives by past CWY youth volunteers. However, what is interesting for Tanzania, as UVIKUITA stated, is the fact that the ‘programme has supported youths through the Youth Leaders Initiative who have a project supported by the programme and involves past volunteers. The project has been economically empowering.’

For the Kenya host organisations, the most common reason for the rating related directly to partner organisation’s (KENVO) mission i.e. environmental protection. Here we see the programme’s contributions to environmental protection such as tree planting, establishing tree nurseries, flower beds, as well garbage management mentioned by 5 of the 7 host organisations. Excerpts from participants from organisations hosting and working with these volunteers noted: The programme supported our organisation in achieving our environmental goals i.e. ensuring the environmental sustainability. The volunteers were able to plant many trees in the compound; they were also able to help the school to manage garbage and to make the school be a green school (Participant from Bathi Secondary school, Kenya)

The programme has had an important impact to our organisation in achieving our goals. As a result of the project we have started [a] garbage management project in our school. Although garbage management is a recurring issue, volunteers have taken it far. They have started a tree nursery; introduced a system of separating garbage into degradable and non-degradable, dug a compost pit for degradable garbage and they spread garbage bins strategically around the school. (A participant from Kijabe Forest Schools Network [KEFSNET], Kenya) 41

The three churches in the area hosting the CWY volunteers registered similar reasons for the relatively high impact rating.

In South Africa, host organisations for the CWY volunteers rated the programme’s impact on their effectiveness at a mean of 4 out of 5, with a variance of between 2 (lowest score) and 5 (highest score). The partner organisation, Volunteer Centre Cape Town, rated the effectiveness impact of the programme at 4 because it had ‘made their organisation more visible’. BAPA Theatre Academy and Beaconvale Community Frail Care Centre, both host organisations, rated the effectiveness impact of the CWY south-to-south programme with a score of 4 out of 5, while Singobile and Beaconvale Volunteer Centre gave a score of 5 out of 5. All these organisations indicated that the programme helped them achieve their strategic goals, which were ‘to support vulnerable, unemployed youth to gain skills and experience through the programme’ (BAPA) and ‘life orientation’ (Beaconvale Community Frail Care Centre). Mitchells Plain School of Skills, which rated the programme’s effectiveness impact at 2, indicated that they were ‘fairly new participant as a host organisation and as such it is really too early to judge impact.’

In Mozambique, participating host organisations gave the CWY south-to-south ‘Every volunteer was assigned a target for the period they programme an average rating of 4 out of 5 for effectiveness impact. Casa would work with the Provincial da Cultura stated that the programme offered good, though limited, organisation. At the end of experiences. Utomi Association stated that besides friendships and relationships their stay most of them being built, important tasks had been accomplished within the organisation. A accomplished pre-defined representative from the Municipal Council of Inhambane City stated that the targets.’ programme helped the local government achieve some of its plans. Guitataru Association for Environmental Theatre groups who rated effectiveness impact at 3 stated that there had been Cleaning, CWY host cash constraints, which hampered effectiveness because ‘it is not always possible organisation, Mozambique to reach 100% results due to unavailability of funds at times’. Association for Environmental Cleaning (ALMA) made reference to the importance of volunteer management, which contributes to increased effectiveness: ‘Every volunteer was assigned a target for the period they would work with the organisation. At the end of their stay most of them accomplished pre-defined targets.’

While the SayXchange programme is a fairly new programme, the partner and host organisations rated the programme’s impact on organisations’ effectiveness at 4 out of 5. The key reason given for this rating was again the coherence between the strategic goals of these organisations and what SayXchange wants to achieve. For example, AMODEFA, the SayXchange partner organisation in Mozambique stated: ‘one of the objectives at AMODEFA is to promote the youth rights and this programme helped South African youths.’ Nonetheless, AMODEFA representatives in the interview also pointed to the reality of certain programme activities being ‘challenging, or not well managed and needed to be improved’. This corroborates the observation made by host families about delays in paying volunteers their allowances and forcing host families to dig deep into their own pockets to support the volunteers. Another participant from one of the host organisations gave the reason for their score at 4 out of 5 on the basis that they felt that the volunteer they hosted was ‘very assertive, self-sufficient and dynamic. He communicated well … he tried hard and managed to sensitise the community in the best way possible.’ Another participant felt the SayXchange programme in 42

Mozambique is contributing to achieving the ‘cultural integration goal and the transmission of values between the youths that constitutes one of the main objectives of the organisation.’ This effectiveness, the participant argued, emanates from the fact that the host organisation is in control of the circumstances that govern the volunteer’s relationship with the programme.

Nevertheless in South Africa a clear discrepancy emerges between the rating of the effectiveness impact of the SayXchange programme by the partner organisation and that by a host organisation. The partner organisation – AFS Interculture – gave a rating of 4 out of 5 for the effectiveness impact and supported this score by stating that ‘the programme complies with AFS’s 2020 vision of expansion of our organisation in the region and the African continent, and therefore it has exposed [AFS] to realities in Southern Africa, because they are different to other programmes that we have outside of the continent’. However, the only South African host organisation that took part in this study – loveLife – gave a score of 1 out of 5, indicating little if any impact on the organisation’s effectiveness. loveLife stated that: The programme had a very small impact because loveLife has a very firm structure and the volunteer was confused; he could not even explain to us what his expectations of loveLife were so we could help him. The volunteer came to our organisation when the main programme training had been completed and had to hit the ground running. There was also no clarity as to what his role should be. Therefore he spent most of his time with us [the administrative team] fulfilling [an] office role as opposed to being at the site where he could have made more impact. He was only sent to the site at a very late stage.

This, yet again, points to administrative challenges for SayXchange, which have been attributed to teething problems for the programme. It is however difficult at this stage to put a finger on the real reasons for the huge discrepancy in effectiveness rating for the same programme in Mozambique and South Africa.

5.3.2 Programme impacts on efficiency of host and partner organisations The CWY south-to-south South African partner and host organisations on average rated the efficiency impact at 3. The South African implementing partner of the CWY, Volunteer Centre, stated that they have always tried to be as efficient as possible in administering the programme. BAPA Theatre Academy, a host organisation, gave a score of 4 and stated that the programme has ‘allowed growth and exposure of young people, providing a platform to express cultural backgrounds’. Another host organisation, Mitchells Plain School of Skills, gave a score of 2 and stated that it was too early to say as they are recent participants in the programme and therefore could not say that things have changed so far. Beaconvale Community Frail Care Centre rated efficiency at 3 and said the financial shortfalls hindered more impact in the organisation as the organisation could not be efficient and volunteers were unable to make any difference to this. Other challenges hindering the programme’s impact on efficiency related to ensuring that host organisations have qualified people to work with the volunteers.

In Mozambique, the CWY partner organisations gave an average rating of 4. All participating organisations argued that this rating was based on their ability to achieve organisational objectives by utilising volunteers without a cost to their organisation. At the same time, these host organisations were of the view that the period of placement should be extended to at least four months in one place.

In Kenya, participating organisations gave an average score of 4 for programme impact on their efficiency. The CWY partner organisation, KENVO, which gave a score of 3, acknowledged that the volunteers engaged are not experts or professionals, but usually secondary school leavers without any professional or skills training or experience. As such, they take a long time to complete their activities although they still get the envisaged results. The organisation relies on its past experience to deal with volunteers. KENVO also indicated that they invest their time in training the volunteers extensively, which requires a lot of time and other resources. The recruitment process itself and preparing them to participate in the programme, takes more than five months and involves application, shortlisting, verification of academic credentials, interviewing and finally, in most cases, KENVO has to facilitate the volunteers’ applications for passports. All this takes place before the programme starts. After they are engaged, the volunteers have to be mentored and trained for the activities the organisation wishes them to undertake.

KEFSNET, which also gave a score of 3, stated that they had achieved most things they had planned for, fairly and within the budget. However, ‘sometimes the project was halting or slow because of insufficient tools, and some volunteers had difficulty coping with the weather, which is sometimes very cold. Some volunteers also had difficulties coping with the physical demand of manual work and developed blisters.’ According to Bathi Secondary School, which also gave a score of 3, the programme assisted them to run the planned environmental activities smoothly and this reduced the school budget because fewer workers were employed to carry out the activities as volunteers undertook the task. Bathi School further stated that the other most important impact of the volunteers was in ‘making the students Their commitment, team work and hard understand the value and impact of volunteering for the general work were easily noticeable. The volunteers good of everyone in the community’. Moreover, it has also also had very good interactions with the ‘demonstrated to the students that young people are also other workers of my organisation.’ St. Joseph the Worker Kereta capable of a working and achieving results without constant Catholic Church, supervision’. A similar view was expressed by A.I.C Mukeu CWY host organisation, Kenya Church, which rated the efficiency impact of the programme at 5 stating: ‘Volunteers set a very good example to youth, with the spirit of volunteering away from their home country. They work, associate and give their energy to help others’. As a result, this: Added value to volunteering through the work they have done in the schools. It has also been efficient in making the school learn strategies of environmental management. If we were paying someone, it would have been costly,13 and it would have not had the same value to students and the school community, because they would feel that is a job for someone who is being paid to do [it]. With the volunteers, it is more sustainable because they pass that culture to the students.

St. Joseph the Worker Kereta Catholic Church, which rated efficiency impact of the programme at 5 praised the programme and the volunteers, stating that they achieved maximum returns for the organisation: ‘Their

13 St. Joseph Secondary School, as well as AIC Magina Church who rated efficiency impact at 4 and 5 respectively, also cited as their reason for their scores minimal cost to the organisation and achieving objectives (including dustbins and working tools which continue to be used for environmental activities well past the volunteers).

commitment, team work and hard work were easily noticeable. The volunteers also had very good interactions with the other workers of my organisation.’

In Tanzania, UVIKUITA rated the efficiency impact at 4, stating that there have been operational benefits accruing to it from hosting the programme. For instance, ‘there are printers, which are meant for the programme, but also benefit the organisations in other activities. For the past five years UVIKUITA have also received training through the programme, which has boosted the capacity of individuals in the organisation to perform. Moreover, some of the participants who have gone through the programme have become part of the organisation and very useful as project leaders.’14

The SayXchange programme in Mozambique received an average ‘Although it has contributed to reaching of objectives, the planning and coordination rating of 3.5 on efficiency impact. AMODEFA, the partner organisation aspects of the programme between rated the programmes impact at 3, stating that ‘although it has AMODEFA and AFS needs improvement in contributed to reaching of objectives, the planning and coordination order to ensure volunteer satisfaction’. aspects of the programme between AMODEFA and AFS needs improvements in order to ensure volunteer satisfaction’. SayXchange Mozambique Nonetheless, the programme has had important efficiency impacts partner assessment because, as they stated, ‘one of the operational areas for AMODEFA is adolescents and youth empowerment. As such, the programme has helped achieve one of the main goals.’ Nucleo de Mavalane, which also gave a score of 3, stated that the programme has been dynamic and still evolving. COALIZAO rated efficiency impact at 4 stating that the attractiveness of the programme is that ‘it does not involve extraordinary costs in achieving the objectives, shows movement towards results and execution of satisfactory activities’.

In South Africa, SayXchange received an average rating of 2.6. For AFS, the objectives of the programme have been met within budget. They stated that to some extent they have managed to match the right people to the right placement. However, due to delays in project implementation, the volunteers feel compromised in regard to their placements. It would appear that they face what has turned out to be a ‘take what you get at the moment’ type of situation. The participant nonetheless stated: ‘There are instances when we as the organisation could have done more. For example, investigating more about the participants during the interviews and resources could have improved the programme.’ The sentiments of the partner organisation are also shared by loveLife, which gave a score of 1, indicating little if any impact of the programme on organisation’s efficiency. They stated that the programme has not been very effective because the volunteer who joined loveLife’s volunteer programmes was young and could not easily communicate in English.

14 A similar experience was registered by the Volunteer Centre Cape Town where one of the programme coordinators is a former participant in the CWY south-south Youth Leaders in Action programme.

5.3.3 Programme relevance to host and partner organisations Different countries registered varying impacts on the relevance of the programme to host and partner organisations. In South Africa for instance, the CWY south-to-south Youth Leaders in Action programme received an average rating of 4. Volunteer Centre in Cape Town, which rated this impact at 4, stated that the programme has been very relevant, but most importantly, has also continued to enhance the relevance of its own organisation: Our service, especially to young people, helps them to gain skills especially because very few of them ever go to the university. But through volunteering these young people are given an opportunity through other means to gain an education and gain skills and can be able to make them more employable. This exchange programme is therefore an opportunity for many of our young people who would otherwise not have set foot outside of their own environment. It is informal learning. Moreover, it instils discipline as well as exposes them to the world of work. This is empowering.

Other participants from host organisations agreed with Volunteer ‘The programme has not been that relevant Centre about the relevance of the programme and the impacts it is because many systems and methods are having on their own organisation’s relevance. This is because there employed using assumptions, without direct are many things that the volunteers do in the community, which research’. gives them exposure while enhancing the status of host BAPA Theatre Academy, organisations. Nonetheless, one participant from BAPA Theatre CWY host organisation, South Africa Academy, despite rating relevance at 4, stated that ‘the programme has not been that relevant because many systems and methods are employed using assumptions, without direct research’.

In Mozambique, the CWY south-to-south programme received an average rating of 4 from host organisations. Casa Provincial da Cultura and Guitataru Theatre Group, which rated its relevance at 4, stated that the programme had efficiently increased the knowledge between different people of different countries and ‘made people aware of the differences with other peoples of the world are not that big.’ Utomi Association, also rating relevance impact at 4, stated that the programme has been important for the organisation because they ‘learned new ways of institution building, as well as sharing the good things of our organisation’. A participant from the Municipal Council of Inhambane City gave a rating of 5, stating the value of the ‘work provided by the volunteers, especially environmental care, would not be done by any other entity in the city.’

In Kenya the CWY south-to-south programme received an average rating of 4 for relevance impact. KENVO, the partner organisation stated that their area of priority as an organisation is environmental conservation and all placements are focused on the same goal. Stakeholders and host organisations also identify KENVO with that. The programme has therefore enhanced their relevance because: Volunteers under the CWY programme in partnership with KENVO are sent in host organisations that is [sic] stakeholders in the activities KENVO identifies itself with. In schools, we work with teachers’ network in establishing environmental clubs. In churches we work with the network of religious leaders who also support and disseminate the message on environmental conservation. It means these organisations identify with KENVO’s priorities of environmental conservation and as such volunteers are relevant to them in implementing those activities and ensuring that the message and accompanied activities are trickling down to the rest of the community. For example if volunteers go to the church to establish tree nurseries, the intention is that these

trees will go to the congregation in the church and the project will be communicated and used to inspire the congregation - not only on the message but on the concrete steps to take in implementing the message. Given these reasons, KENVO rated relevance impact at 4 out of 5.

Responses from host organisations corroborate KENVO’s views. A.I.C Magina rated this impact at 5, and stated that the programme was relevant in helping them achieve their goal of preserving nature and promoting values that protected the environment were concerned. Bathi Secondary School rated this impact at 3, stating that the activities carried out by the volunteers were very relevant in changing and improving the natural environment of the school, as well as in achieving the ‘environmental protection goals and practical demonstration of environmental management by the school.’ St. Joseph the Worker Kereta Catholic Church gave the highest rating of 5 stating that for them, the ‘beautification of the compound is a great challenge for the people who are residents there to copy. Volunteers planted trees and prepared a seed bed of 1 700 plants. That is a lesson we were left with as far as Students in the school are ‘inspired and environmental conservation is concerned.’ A.I.C Mukeu Church, know that they can go somewhere and rating this impact at 5 indicated: ‘this was a project which volunteer like Tanzania and other places, people did not think about before. But having it introduced and and in the process learn something e.g. seeing how it turned out, everyone realised how vital and of big environmental conservation and cultural significance it was for the church and the members of the differences we have’. community.’ St. Joseph Secondary School gave a score of 4 and St. Joseph Secondary School, stated that students in the school are ‘inspired and know that CWY host organisation, Kenya they can go somewhere and volunteer like Tanzania and other places, and in the process learn something e.g. environmental conservation and cultural differences we have. The volunteers also showed the students the importance of making their environmental clubs much stronger in order to improve the environment.’

Nonetheless, some participants indicated that they had to forgo some of their priorities because of financial difficulties, which meant they had to concentrate only on achievable objectives. KEFSNET for instance gave a moderate rating of 3, which they explained as follows: We had other priorities in our plans, but had to first skip them due to high costs that was to be incurred and manpower needed. For example our school is located in a fairly sloppy land where we need construction of gabions to control soil erosion due to water from rooftops. The construction of the same needs more funds and skilled manpower. The participants in the volunteer programme had no capacity to undertake such a big and technical assignment, which also required a lot of financing.

In Tanzania, UVIKUITA rated the relevance impact at 5 and indicated that the programme has been very relevant for them because: The youth who are the first beneficiaries, their parents, the community and even the government sees the programme as important and relevant to the current youths needs in the country. There is a big demand than we can accommodate. This year [2011], this programme was discussed in the parliament of Zanzibar and how useful it is [to] youth and its potential to help more youths.

This points to relevance of the programme as well as the partner organisation whose ambition is to empower youths to be self-reliant, take initiative in managing their own lives, and be useful and productive in the community. This is what this programme offers.

The SayXchange programme in Mozambique was rated at an average of 4. AMODEFA stated the utility of the programme lay in its practical ways of linking young people in favour of regional unity, taking into account similar histories and customs of the people in both South Africa and Mozambique. In South Africa, AFS reported beneficiaries’ satisfaction as a pointer to its relevance as well as its spread of the message of integration. However, loveLife, a host organisation, said the programme did not in any way contribute to the relevance of the organisation. The participants from loveLife indicated that there was a need to do more in terms of: Preparing host organisations as well as volunteers on what to expect, volunteer’s personal priorities, state where they need growth so that it makes life easier for everyone involved … When the volunteer joined us, partnerships with key stakeholders had already been finalised and [we] could not influence this in any way. He also spent some time learning about what our organisation is about, what we do and [how] we go about doing that, then focusing on building relations with our stakeholders/partners or even introduce us to those key people he knows.

5.3.4 Programme impacts on financial viability of the host and partner organisations In South Africa, the CWY south-to-south programme received an aggregate rating of 3 out of 5. There were clear differences between the partner organisation and the host organisations in this rating. The Volunteer Centre rated this aspect at 4 out of 5 , stating that there are indeed financial benefits that they get as an organisation coordinating and placing volunteers in the host organisations and communities. However, Mitchells Plain School of Skills as well as BAPA Theatre Academy gave a score of 2, stating that there had been no financial impact ‘Budget issues need to be transparent to the for their organisation because volunteers are not engaged in any participants as well as hosting organisations in order to realise the focal points and fundraising or generating income for the organisations. BAPA aims’. Theatre Academy was more critical, indicating that the budget issues need to be transparent to the participants as well as hosting BAPA Theatre Academy, organisations in order to realise the focal points and aims. CWY host organisation, Beaconvale Community Frail Care Centre, Sibongile and Beaconvale South Africa Volunteer Centre all scored this impact at 3 and highlighted challenges with the budget, stating that there have never been sufficient funds to achieve what they hope to do, even with the contribution of volunteers.

Similar to South Africa, the CWY south-to-south programme in Mozambique received an average score of 3. Casa Provincial da Cultura rated this impact at 1, while Guitataru Theatre Group and Association for Environmental Cleaning (ALMA) rated this impact at 3. All these organisations cited a lack of internal funds as being the primary constraint in making the programme more financially effective. For ALMA, ‘there were some extra costs the organisation incurred because volunteers worked in an area that needed transport money more often than other areas.’ But Utomi Association and Municipal Council of Inhambane City rated this impact at 4 and 5 respectively and stated that because the ‘programme allocated a budget to the 48

volunteers, they did not become an overload [on] the host organisation.’ Considering these divergences of opinions and experiences, it is not clear why some organisations reported that they had to incur extra expenses to host the volunteers while others did not.

In Kenya, the impact of the CWY south-to-south programme on the financial viability of the organisations was rated at an average of 3. The most positive aspect cited was the cost-saving aspect that the programme. This afforded the host and partner organisations, albeit at a minimal cost, returns that far outweighed inputs. The partner organisation, KENVO, gave a rating of 3 stating: The programme is beneficial to the organisation since the volunteers assist in many activities that would otherwise be paid for. For example, preparing the tree nurseries or planting trees, which previous to having volunteers we used to pay for that service, but when they are here, we really do not need to pay. Some overheads (organisational) costs, however, are not catered for, e.g. water and electricity bills, tea and meals, which the volunteers consume and have to be borne by the organisation.15 But on the whole, there is some sort of trade-off between what they do and what the expenses [are]. Certainly, what they do is worth far more than they get.

‘There is no aspect of the organisation An even more positive picture was painted by St. Joseph the which has not benefited from the support Worker Kereta Catholic Church, St. Joseph Secondary School and that the project offers. This includes host A.I.C Magina, all of whom rated this impact at 4. A participant families and sector projects of UVIKUITA, from St. Joseph the Worker Kereta Catholic Church indicated that, which serves as work placement for financially -speaking, the project had helped them to be more volunteers because they are not taken financially viable because ‘the work being voluntary nonetheless outside the organisation.’ helped the management to save a lot of money. If the UVIKUITA, CWY partner organisation, organisation had employed people to do the work the volunteers Tanzania did, it would have used a lot of money.’ St. Joseph Secondary School indicated the school operated on a shoestring budget and as such the ‘assistance received from the volunteers did not cost the school so much, while the work done was much more than what the school offered volunteers.’ A.I.C Magina indicated the programme helped the organisation ‘save a lot of money on labour, seeds and plants as well as working tools such as wheel barrows, spades and even litter bins.’ For A.I.C Mukeu Church, despite giving a score of 3, they felt that the amount

15 Other participants including representatives from Bathi Secondary School and KEFSNET, who also gave a rating of 3, similarly pointed to having to meet overheads such as feeding and accommodation in hosting the volunteers, which increased their bills ‘although the work that they do cannot be equated to the things we give to them. They offer more than what we give back. Sometimes we have had problems of pre-planning for them because sometimes they come abruptly when we are not expecting them’ (Bathi Secondary School, Kenya). KEFSNET added: ‘The programme provided fewer tools compared to the number of volunteering participants. To satisfy the number of tools needed, we had to borrow from the surrounding community or buy some more. The provision of tools needs to be improved.’

they spent on tea for volunteers was marginal and the work done by in making nursery beds and flowers that made the church compound beautiful, would have cost far much more.

In Tanzania, the CWY partner organisation, UVIKUITA rated this impact at 5. For them, ‘there is no aspect of the organisation which has not benefited from the support that the project offers. This includes host families and sector projects of UVIKUITA, which serve as work placement for volunteers because they are not taken outside the organisation.’ As a result, within the organisation, staff members have benefited from extensive training courses on issues like preparing viable programme budgets, training on the reporting system, which meets international standards, proper record keeping and documentation, all of which add significant value when translated into monetary terms. There are even some staff members who have been employed to work on the programme and on other activities in the organisation with the funds from the programme. This has translated into better financial sustainability of the organisation.

The SayXchange programme in Mozambique registered an average ‘The money given by Southern Africa Trust rating of 4. AMODEFA, the partner organisation in Mozambique goes a long way to supporting in the noted that ‘the money given by Southern Africa Trust goes a long management of volunteers and host way to supporting in the management of volunteers and host families, which ensure a more sustainable families, which ensure a more sustainable and better conditions for and better conditions for the volunteers and the host families.’ the volunteers and the host families.’ This view was supported by AMODEFA Nucleo de Mavalane as well as COALIZAO, both of whom scored SayXchange partner organisation, financial viability impacts at 5. Nucleo de Mavalane stated that ‘the Mozambique programme is on the right path because it facilitates with things like accommodation’ while COALIZAO indicated that the involvement of the community/local resources means that the impacts are spread wide in the communities. Nonetheless, AMODEFA pointed out that there is a financial strain in terms of administrative expenses for the organisation that needs to be addressed.

In South Africa, SayXchange received an average score of 2. AFS gave a score of 4 and indicated that the programme meets required expenses, even in cases where non-budgeted expenses emerged. This has resulted from the funding received from Southern Africa Trust. loveLife indicated there had been no impact on its financial viability: The volunteer had no impact in us getting more finances for our ‘In future, when sending young people to programmes. We often travelled with him due to being unsure of his the organisation, there should be some financial stability. [The] volunteer used our telephones, fax and research done on how the organisation emailing resources as well as organisation’s car going to events or works.’ activities, which sometimes were his own things. As such, the loveLife, programme interfered a bit on the organisation. In future, when SayXchange host organisation, sending young people to the organisation, there should be some South Africa research done on how the organisation works.

5.3.5 Conclusion on impacts to host and partner organisations To conclude, in most cases the length of time an organisation has been involved in the CWY programme determined the scores. In other words, the longer the organisation’s involvement in the programme, the greater the programme was said to have an impact. On this basis, it is likely that lower scores for SayXchange are a function of it being a relatively new programme. In South Africa, the CWY partner organisation, Volunteer Centre, noted that the CWY programme has been ‘highly appreciated and it addresses a very serious situation (unemployment) that is faced by communities in the townships.’ Through this programme, youth have been able to make a productive use of their time and have offered huge support to host organisations work in surrounding communities. Nonetheless Volunteer Centre participants pointed to ‘issues of transparency and realism in some of the programme interventions. Some modules of the educational materials used in CWY programs were brought from overseas and do not tally with African reality.’16

In Mozambique, participants pointed to the CWY programme contributing to organisations’ visibility in their work through sharing different ways of managing an organisation, providing research support to organisations, as well as cultural exchange at no cost while giving young people an opportunity to learn and contribute to their skills development. The cost issues were also pointed out by Guitataru Theatre , which stated that the programme has helped improve the training of actors and changed perceptions about other cultures within the communities in which the group works, at no A number of host organisation focus group cost to the organisation. Another participant from the local participants recommended extending the period of time for placing the volunteers in municipal council of Inhambane City stated the project’s utility in the host organisations as well as making ‘helping the government in cleaning campaigns in areas of the funds available to partner organisations so beaches (Tofo and Barra) that otherwise would not be so clean.’ as to achieve their objectives using The drawback pointed out was the duration of the placement. A volunteers. number of host organisation focus group participants recommended extending the period of time for placing the volunteers in the host organisations as well as making funds available to partner organisations so as to achieve their objectives using volunteers. They argue that it is important to exchange experiences, but it is a pity that there are no funds are allocated specifically to the local organisations (as opposed to the implementing organisations like AJUDE) to get more benefits from the programme.

In Kenya, the partner organisation, KENVO, observed that the CWY programme has had a demonstrable impact on the organisation on all areas. The host organisations all pointed to great work that KENVO and the volunteers have been doing in the field of environmental protection. This is evident from the comments made by various participants below: ‘A clear understanding prior volunteers’ arrival has helped manage the expectations of the host organisations, in that they did 16 In order to support its educational approach based on action-reflection (experiential learning), CWY provides a portfolio to all youth participating in its programmes. The portfolio is divided into educational modules.not The have document over inflated seeks toexpectations help youth and position themselves as learners within the CWY programme, understand the dynamics of a localknew community, what to apply expect. communication’ skills, apply the skills necessary for leading groups and working with a team, integrate a community project in the health,St. Joseph environment the Worker or gender Kereta equity areas, develop analytic skills and communicate in a new language. Catholic Church, CWY host organisation, Tanzania 51

[The] programme has been very effective and helped in achieving the environmental related goals which helps the school directly. Most of the volunteers who have been sent to our school have helped the school in managing the compound in terms of planting tree beds, in terms of managing the garbage and litter in the school compound and also they have helped the school to achieve one of its goals which is to maintain the green nature of the school. (Representative from Bathi Secondary School, Kenya)

A clear understanding prior volunteers’ arrival has helped manage the expectations of the host organisations, in that they did not have over inflated expectations and knew what to expect. One of the goals that was realised was the goal of the exchange programme, which was to get a suitable placement for the volunteers. Without that they will come and just waste time, but the host organisation feels that by providing room for participants to work with them, they contribute the success of the exchange programme. (Representative from St. Joseph the Worker Kereta Catholic Church, Tanzania)

The same participant pointed out that the ‘commitment and passion of volunteering was noted as the key drivers for the successful work placement. It was observed that there was a possibility that paid labour could not achieve the enthusiasm, commitment and degree of success volunteer work was able to achieve.’17 As such, the outputs of the programme were notable and successful to an extent that it has posed a challenge to

The secret to the success of the the areas of placement to maintain the good work started and not wait for programme has been the good the next round of volunteers to come and do the work. Moreover, the interactions volunteers have had experience that was shared with the institution was sustainable in such a with the community, which has way that the church and individuals in the church could proceed with served as important entry points similar projects, such as preparing seed beds and planting trees and as it has allowed them to be flowers, managing the environment without difficulties because they have accepted and get on well with the received the practical training and models established with their people and do their assignment in involvement. The secret to the success of the programme has been the a relaxed, comfortable manner. good interactions volunteers have had with the community, which has

served as important entry points as it has allowed them to be accepted and get on well with the people and do their assignment in a relaxed, comfortable manner.

‘Communication between host and partner For SayXchange, a representative from loveLife observed that there organisations. should be strengthened by have been concerns regarding communication between host and means of coordinating a procedure that would allow for more satisfactory interaction between volunteers and host 17 organisation Participants’. representing the A.I.C. Magina and Mukeu Churches, both host organisations, expressed similar sentiments. A representative from A.I.C. Magina particularly paid tribute to the value of volunteering when he argued that ‘probably the activities of environmental protectionloveLife, would haveSayXchange not been undertaken at all because it was only made possible by the programme and availability of volunteershost’. A organisation,participant repr Southesenting Africa A.I.C . Mukeu Church stated that the ‘project has been an eye opener and the environment agenda has been raised to one of the priority areas of the church because of the results of the assignment the volunteers did.’ This points to longer term sustainability goals that the volunteers have helped ignite in the local community.

partner organisations. It was suggested that this should be strengthened by means of coordinating a procedure that would allow for more satisfactory interaction between volunteers and host organisation. The representative also pointed out the need to put in place structures for evaluating performance and well as the achievement of set goals in order to judge the volunteer’s evolution and to provide an appropriate platform to allow them to voice their issues, concerns and intentions, and open dialogue between the volunteers and organisations.

6.0 Respondent recommendations for strengthening programme impacts This section presents recommendations for the improvement of the exchange programmes. The identification of recommendations entailed a careful analysis of key programme strengths (framed as factors that drive greater participation of volunteers in the exchange programmes) as well as the countervailing forces against the same. This was in an effort to address the challenges while capitalising on the strengths of the counteracting forces. This analysis utilised the Force field analysis tool in figure 4 below.18

Figure 4 Force field analysis tool

The force field analysis tool was designed to specifically help answer the following questions:  How could the accessibility of south-to-south exchanges be increased for youth volunteers?  What are the factors that might reduce people’s access to regional youth volunteer exchange programmes and how can these be addressed?  What are the main challenges faced by youth volunteers, the hosting communities and the partner organisations?

18 2 This SAS tool allows participants to identify and examine the factors that contribute to a core problem, a situation or a project, and those that counteract it.

 What programmes or additional elements could be further developed, from an experiential learning perspective, to help volunteers reflect on their experience and articulate the skills and knowledge they have gained?  Which partnerships should be developed in order to integrate disciplinary skills within south-to-south models?

Participants were asked to list the driving factors that make it difficult for young people to participate in the exchange programmes, and later pile and sort them. Thereafter, participants were asked to list counteracting forces that can enable young people to participate in the youth volunteer exchange programmes and later pile and sort them. The listed factors were also rated in terms of the weakest (1) to strongest (5).

6.1 Programme challenges/Driving forces for limited youth participation in the exchange programme The driving forces that make it difficult for youth to participate in the exchange programme as captured below, shows congruencies of views between the two programmes in the various study sites. Key driving forces were identified as: information gaps; resource constraints; qualifications gaps; competing priorities and other structural constraints; lack of life skills; and attitudes towards volunteering. Below, we present a discussion on the findings.

6.1.1 Resource constraints In South Africa, the CWY participants rated this challenge at 1, but argued it can be addressed. They stated that essentially, the administration fee charged by the organisations to potential participants, though very minimal, cuts out some of the poorer communities from which potential programme participants could otherwise be recruited. Some young people are too poor to afford even a minimum payment. Usually such individuals are also shy because of their poverty and do not even mention the fact that they will not get the money. They would rather sit and stay at home rather than join the programme. This limits the pool of potential participants. Separate focus group interviews with both CWY and SayXchange partner and host organisations in South Africa also revealed finances as a critical factor contributing to the limited opportunities for young people to volunteer. CWY partner and host organisations representatives gave a rating of 3 for lack of motivation to volunteer due to lack of money or opportunities, while SayXchange partner and host organisations rated it at 5.

The resource constraints are further compounded by lack of legal travel documents, which was rated 1 in South Africa. In South Africa, CWY partner and host organisations participants noted that many young people do not see any opportunities coming their way in the form of volunteering. Young people lack identity documents and passports because they do not see possibility of travel as a reality. Parents, who should encourage their children to obtain identity documents together with passports, do not see the connection either. One participant in Cape Town argued that this was especially so for ‘coloured people who do not see that good things like that can also happen to them. But passports are also expensive and many poor people do not see the essence [sic] of one especially because they do not see any opportunities outside their communities.’

In Kenya, which rated resource constraints at 4, the costs of acquiring travel documents (a passport), which is a responsibility of the aspirant The material/realities of the target volunteers, was specifically cited as ‘limiting especially for those from population in these exchange very poor families.’ Moreover, the resource constraints become even programmes show that unless they are made affordable to the lower more acute for young people from poorer backgrounds as the CWY class, regional youth exchange programme requires that they raise some money for their personal opportunities will only benefit those needs. In Tanzania, participants indicated that potential CWY young people who are already volunteers ‘need to have the ability to access Internet, download and better-off in society. print application materials, which can be costly for some people. Moreover, potential volunteers need bus fares to follow up and perhaps deliver the applications, as well as travel for visa interviews in Dar es Salaam. Given these costs families may not afford to financially support the application process of their children. All these factors deter youths from poorer background from participating.’ These discussions point to links to the material/realities of the target population in these exchange programmes. Unless it is made affordable to the lower class, it will remain a programme that benefits the already better-off in society.19

6.1.2 Lack of life skills The CWY South African partner and host organisations focus group participants rated lack of life skills at 3. School leavers are in most instances too young and some have a low self-esteem (rated at 2 by the SayXchange partner and host organisations focus group participants). Sometimes these young people leave school at 18 (i.e. grade 12 learners in South Africa) and have no life experience. Cape Town CWY South African partner and host organisations participants argued that sending them to an exchange programme, at this age ‘might expose them to so many challenges that they are not prepared for and because they are so young, they might fail, and this could negatively impact the programme.’ Moreover, some organisations think because the youth are too young, they cannot be of much use in their placements. This was mentioned by both SayXchange and CWY partner and host organisation focus group participants in Mozambique and South Africa. In Mozambique for instance, a SayXchange host organisation participant stated that this emanates from an obsession with professionalism.

19 It would be hugely significant if southern partners could somehow be supported to set up a fund or fundraising mechanism to ensure that larger numbers of lower income youth have access to the programme. Support measures include helping young people obtain passports, vaccinations, etc. As noted by some of the respondents cited in this report, this would help youth from poorer backgrounds deal with administrative fee costs which, though currently ZAR1900, constitute a significant obstacle to participation. In addition to this fee, must be added the costs of getting all the documentation such as a passport (currently costing ZAR400). The Volunteer Centre has made some progress in this regard by having a flexible payment method for the administration fees of ZAR 1900 whereby participants can pay the amount off over a number of months. The Volunteer Centre also supports the youth in fundraising, subsidising the cost of getting a passport by ZAR200, and in cases of families in distress the amount is “written off” and no participant is excluded. The Volunteer Centre has also been promoting the south-south programme as a subsidised programme for unemployed youth. In South Africa therefore the majority of youth participating have been Black African – with the next group being Coloured. Indian and White youth have not been targeted or recruited as these population groups are perceived to have greater access to privilege. Perhaps this is a model that can be utilised in other southern countries through cross border learning among partners to ensure the model is improved to better serve local needs.

In Tanzania (CWY) as well as Mozambique (SayXchange), cultural reservations were given for some families or parents not allowing their daughters to apply and participate in the programme on the assumption of protecting them from the ‘potential risks’ of travelling independently to a foreign country or staying with another family ‘while so ‘young’ and easily manipulated or taken advantage of.’ Moreover, one participant said that Tanzanian youth themselves ‘fear of going somewhere they have not been before and be there by themselves without the security of a known family member.’ This in turn therefore stifles the demand side (from placement organisations) of the programme.

For Kenyan CWY programme partner and host organisations focus group participants, the qualification criteria, which they rated at 5, was cited to be a constraint to youth participation. Specifically, young people who lack secondary school certificates were mentioned; often this is function of their poor economic backgrounds, but it discriminates against them. Moreover, participants noted that some also receive very poor quality of education with the result that their low grades preclude them from participating. For instance, in Kenya, a participant is required to have ‘scored a C or C+ and above. There might be some people who have D or even below who are good, but the programme because of the grades side lines them.’ Poor education also has other effects because poor education makes these young people ‘not to fit in the exchange programme because they cannot express themselves well.’’ Further conditions for selection, including age limitations (18-24 for the CWY south-to-south programme and 18-25 for SayXchange), were also mentioned as leaving out many who might otherwise wish to participate in Kenya, South Africa and Mozambique through either programme. Participants in all the study sites indicated that this excludes many potential participants. This is precisely because at 18, there are other competing priorities, especially education. In all the countries in the region 18 year olds are matriculating and joining colleges and universities. At 24, that is the time those in Kenya and Tanzania leave the university and other colleges and by then, they are just ‘too old to participate’. Other conditions upheld during the selection process include that applicants have to belong to an organisation or group, which leaves out many young people who do not belong to any organisation or group.

6.1.3 Information gaps There is limited awareness among young people of the existence of the programmes in virtually all the study sites and across the two programmes. Moreover, according to one Cape Town host organisation respondent, sometimes the youth assume that such a programme only exists for the educated people. Many youth do not do Internet research to see what kinds of outreach programmes are available to them. As such, the South African CWY focus group with host organisations in Cape Town rated information gaps as a driving factor of 5.

In Tanzania, the reason for this, as already indicated, is related to resource constraints. A participant in the Tanzanian CWY host organisation focus group pointed out that: Generally the Tanzanian population is very poorly informed and have very low understanding of volunteering from the perspective of the west. As such, there is little enthusiasm and motivation to participate in such programmes because a lot of youth have very little understanding about volunteering and its value and are therefore not motivated to participate.

According to another Tanzanian CWY host organisation participant, this is compounded by the fact that society, represented by parents and the state, ‘does not provide youth- Insufficient outreach of the programme to young people and friendly information and activities to motivate youth engagements in to organisations leads to lower these kinds of the programmes.’ Given low levels of awareness, ‘a lot of participation. families and youths do not come across the comprehensive information regarding the programme and how to apply and be considered for the opportunity and for parents to have a clear understanding of the safety, values and general wellness assurance for their children’ (Tanzanian host organisation focus group participant). The Tanzanian focus group nonetheless rated information gaps at 1 on the basis that the partner organisation might not be doing everything in its power to make youth more aware of such volunteering opportunities. Insufficient outreach of the programme to young people and to organisations leads to lower participation.

Limitations also arise owing to parents being over-protective of their children (mentioned in both South Africa and Mozambique in both SayXchange and CWY programmes). Specifically, both SayXchange and CWY host and partner organisations participants revealed that South African parents are cautious of sending young people to other African countries due to ignorance and misconceptions that there are civil wars everywhere in Africa. Much of this is created by ignorance and ‘fear of the unknown’ (mentioned in both SayXchange and CWY host and partner organisations focus groups). Specifically, ‘the youth may hear about Mozambique as another African country with an ongoing civil war, without necessarily any sufficient information on the same. Similarly in Mozambique, obstacles created by parents (rated 2) were seen as a major constraint to volunteerism because ‘parents think that because it is not a paid task, it is a waste of time.’ But potential volunteers in Kenya, CWY interviews revealed, ‘view other countries not as good as theirs, hence they do not want to go to them.’ In Kenya, where they rated the information gap at 2, the youth were said to ‘fear the cultural differences and what will be the outcome of their visits.’ This emerges from the fact that ‘most of the youths are spatially localised within their environment and thus fear of foreign place, the environment and culture dissuades them from attempting to apply.’ In Tanzania, the youth were said to lack information because they are always behind the in news simply because of lack of access to information, especially information transmitted through the Internet.

6.1.4 Competing priorities and other structural constraints There are also competing priorities in that some youth choose to engage in many other things such as work, education, entertainment, sports, home chores, and thus do not have time for exchange programmes. Time constraints were rated at 5 in South Africa and Kenya. South African and Mozambican CWY participants as well as SayXchange participants indicated that the start up of the exchange programme clashes with educational semesters in South Africa. Youth in school who would like to take part are restricted by term dates as they pay fees at the beginning at the year while these exchanges start in the middle of a semester; they therefore will not have time to take part as they have started classes at the university or college by the time the exchange programme starts up for the year. Moreover, considering that the CWY south-to-south programme tends to attract unemployed youth barely having graduated from school, some youth may not have sufficient time to volunteer unless they take a gap year to enable them participate.

Similar to the respondents in South Africa and Mozambique, participants in Kenya indicated that the timing is unfavourable because the CWY south-to-south YLA programme takes place when most of the youth are in schools or at college, and so it is difficult for them to participate. In Kenya, where there is a rich volunteering culture (Kanyinga, 2001; Kanyinga, Mitullah and Njagi, 2007), participants argued that volunteering is not a priority for young people. Most youth consider things to be good only if they have direct and immediate financial gain. As such, they view the exchange programme as a waste of time, energy and opportunity because they are not paid. They would therefore rather remain in their country where they will gain some little money rather than participate in the programme, which they view as not financially viable. Moreover, most young Kenyans would also rather participate in the north-south exchange than in the programme across the border in Tanzania.

Structural constraints include lack of a culture of volunteering among the youth (rated 4 both programmes in Mozambique). Participating organisations in the CWY in Mozambique stated that there was a weak youth cultural development in Inhambane province where the exchange takes place. As such, young people do not actively participate in community activities especially as they have ambitions to get full-time employment so as to face their social and economic realities. In Kenya it was said that youth do not believe in volunteerism. They thus feel that when they are involved in the exchange programme they lose an opportunity to make money in comparison with their peers who are not in the programme and are earning money. ‘They at times visualise the programme as being used by the organisers to get money for themselves from donors.’ But even when there is sufficient interest from the youth to volunteer, the programmes themselves only have a limited number of spaces – a factor also mentioned by SayXchange host and partner organisations focus group participants in Mozambique. A Kenyan participant stated that ‘the programme gives a chance to only a few volunteers to participate in the programme because, i.e. only nine per exchange, that is a very small number compared to number of applications and aspiring participants’. A Tanzanian participant also pointed to the limited number of opportunities in comparison with the large number of potential participants available. Few chances limit the ability of others to participate due to intense competition involved.

In Mozambique, everything was said to be very political, which creates structural constraints from political interferences. Participants rated the politically charged environment at 5 and argued it is not an easy thing to eliminate as it is deeply entrenched in the Mozambican national ethos. The interference emanates from competition between different political parties, which stifles projects as each party wants to know ‘which political party is behind each event’. This leads to poor youth participation in public debates because they fear association with one or another political party.

Participants in South African and Kenyan CWY host organisations also pointed out to an inherent structural discrimination in the programmes. For instance the South African CWY focus group mentioned limitations on youth with physical disabilities who may be unable to participate because the programme does not take care of such youth who may nevertheless have many other abilities. ‘This is discrimination of youth with physical disabilities.’ In Kenya, participants stated that there is inherent gender discrimination in these programmes,

especially for ‘young mothers who are unable [to participate] to due to responsibilities that they need to address as young and single mothers.’

6.1.5 Attitudes towards volunteering Like Mozambique, Tanzania also registered a lack of volunteerism spirit which was rated at 4 with a participant indicating that: While Tanzanians have a long history of doing voluntary work, the concept volunteerism as it is used in the west is quite foreign and have no social or cultural underpinnings in the society, while in the west it has been the route to successful careers and opportunities. In the country such attributions have not held roots as far as volunteerism is concerned. Accordingly, there is no clear understanding of the concept, nor is there an institutional set-up to support volunteerism. For that reason it is very difficult for youth to conceptualise it as an opportunity.

The specific critique here is that the CWY programme uses ‘an imported design’ when it comes to criteria for participation not suitable for local context. For instance ‘in Tanzania anyone between the ages of 18 and 20 is considered still quite young while abroad they are considered to be adults. There are also issues of duration, hosting, and disciplinary policies, which are more inclined to western considerations than to the local context. This, to an extent, comes into conflict with the local situation and might limit participation of some youths.’ Moreover, another added that some youth only care about money and generating income, with the result that volunteering does not appeal to them. Participants in the SayXchange programme host and partner organisation focus group in South Africa rated the limited understanding the world of volunteerism at 5 and cited a similar view that indicates low levels of youth participation in volunteer exchange programmes.

6.2 Enabling factors for youth participation in the exchange programmes The analysis of the data collected from the various study sites for both programmes indicated that the key force fields that make it possible for the youth to participate in the volunteer exchange programmes include: the availability of resources to support the exchange, availability of volunteers, opportunities to network with other organisations, interpretative abilities to see lifetime opportunities in these exchange programmes; improvement on information sharing and outreach to the youth to promote knowledge around advantages of volunteerism and the programmes; and addressing concerns raised regarding qualifications limitations. These are discussed in detail below.

6.2.1 Availability of resources This was mentioned in two study sites (Kenya and Tanzania) by participants of the CWY host and partner organisations focus groups. Participants of both sites rated this factor at 5. The specific contributing variable for this factor included: political stability and peace, which Kenyan participants indicated was an important resource for such a programme to flourish. Moreover, the participation in the programme is made possible if there is evidence of goodwill between host and partner organisations to accommodate the programme and oversee and manage the volunteers. This is deemed to be key because youths are engaged by local organisations during the volunteer experience.

Programme pillars were defined as youth volunteer participants, partner organisations, work placements, host families and communities, and the financial donors who finance the operational and logistical aspects of the exchange. In addition, monetary resources for the participants’ upkeep and paid personnel such as programme coordinators, programme supervisors and work placement supervisors were said to be key. Moreover, government support was also mentioned in both Kenya and Tanzania: ‘The good will of the government to consent and support the programme makes it possible for it to run and youths of both countries to participate knowing they are in something legitimate and approved by the respective governments. Without that, youths cannot participate because they will be in fear of state’ (Kenyan host and partner organisation focus group participant). The Zanzibar parliament discussion of this programme cited earlier in this report is a case in point.

In Tanzania, South Africa and Mozambique, parental support was mentioned by host and partner organisations focus groups in both the CWY and SayXchange programmes. In Tanzania for instance, a participant indicated: ‘most youths especially from poverty stricken families or dysfunctional families are struggling by themselves, and parents and other family members are rarely providing support for them to move ahead in their lives. Without such support they fail to attempt many opportunities including participating in such a programme.’ Such support was said to be most likely to manifest in more affluent families and enables the youth to apply and get a passport as well as get financial support from parents. In South Africa, the CWY host and partner organisation focus group revealed that parental influence, which was rated at 5, was key because, in some instances, some ‘parents who have had the opportunity to travel and thus know the benefits of exposure, encourage their children to participate. An exposed parent offers greater chances for their kids to explore. Once they are informed, there is a greater chance and eagerness to participate.’

6.2.2 Interpretative abilities to see lifetime opportunities in these exchange programmes Parental exposure was said to enable them have interpretative abilities of opportunities arising out of such exchange programmes and therefore support their children participate. This was mentioned in CWY as well as SayXchange South African and Mozambique host and partner organisation focus groups who rated this factor at 5 (SayXchange Mozambique and South Africa). Conversely, they encourage their children to utilise opportunities that volunteerism may present. Such youth might see the exchange programme as an opportunity of a life time to open up avenues for work or education, which might not come their way again. They may not reach the age criteria in the following year.

Also, they might decide to continue with the youth exchanges and apply to be a project supervisor. This is a positive outcome that can be utilise to promote the exchange programme more widely. Nonetheless, even for the social groups that are not so well off, there are numerous opportunities for informal learning. As such, some youths who do not have formal training in a specific area may grab the opportunity to go on an exchange as it offers employment readiness, skills training and puts them in a good standing to apply to any higher learning institution if they chose to study further (mentioned in the CWY South African host and partner organisation focus group as well as in Mozambique in both CWY and SayXchange host and partner organisations focus groups). 60

The SayXchange host and partner organisations focus group in Mozambique, for instance, noted that these young people develop a lot in the course of these placements in skills like youth and community development, communication. But such opportunities, it was mentioned, are not limited to the skills gained. They are also cultivated from the social networks that emerge. This creates social capital that lasts past the exchange period and can be relied upon for connections to information on job or educational opportunities. This view is indeed corroborated by the Kenyan volunteer cited earlier in this report who ended up securing a job as an English teacher in a school in Tanzania because the friends he had made in Tanzania told him of such an opening. As such, these exchange programmes enhance networking.

6.2.3 Availability of volunteers A closely related factor to availability of resources is the availability of a fertile youth volunteer base in the participating countries. In Kenya and Mozambique, the availability of volunteers (rated at 5) was seen as an enabler for youth participation. Here, the abundance of youths willing to participate was seen as a resource. Such youths have different motivations including love for adventure where many young people are attracted by the possibility of travel even when they do not benefit financially; desire to socialise, stay away from teachers and parents, meet their peers and create friendships, break between school and college; demonstrable empowerment outcomes from past participants, in which case, ‘youths have interacted with others that have participated in an exchange programme they tend to get the most significant information and motivation that leads them to aspire to participate in such a programme’ (Kenyan host organisation); as well as desire to experience different things and to get exposure. As such, the exchanges were said to be ‘eye openers for opportunities that lie beyond one’s home place’ (cited by Tanzanian and Kenyan host organisation participants).

Moreover, some of these youths are also said to see the relevance and compatibility of the exchange programmes to their lives. As such, they see them as a chance to enhance the attainment of their goals and value the programme (cited by Kenyan as well as Tanzanian host organisation participants). This is particularly true for those who take these opportunities as a chance to learn or get practical skills that they later use to find jobs or use even in their college studies. In Tanzania and Mozambique, for instance, young people were said to be inspired to participate in the programme because of anticipated skills development and exploring new opportunities as well as opening doors to opportunities they were not aware of or they could not access before participating in the programme. This leads to youth empowerment as young people are indeed trained during the exchange programmes. In the words of a Mozambican host organisation participant, ‘a trained young man or woman is more capable of influencing a change in attitudes and no manipulation can be exerted over him/her.’ The examples cited earlier of skills gained through these exchange programmes and some of the organisations they have set up for youth empowerment corroborate this conclusion.

6.2.4 Improvement on information sharing and outreach to the youth to promote knowledge around advantages of volunteerism and the programmes CWY as well as SayXchange host and partner organisation focus groups in Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique mentioned this factor, which was rated 3 in Mozambique, 5 in South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya

by CWY participants, and 5 by SayXchange participants in South Africa. Such outreach programmes should also target their messaging to creating youth interest in other parts and countries in Africa, which would definitely lead to curiosity for wanting to participate in these exchange programmes in other countries as an opportunity to know more about these countries. In Mozambique, the SayXchange host and partner organisation focus group mentioned the need to have visible local volunteer centres that do outreach and ensure youth the youth are aware of the opportunities. This would in turn lead to greater awareness and hence greater interest to volunteer. This recommendation also mirrored with the SayXchange programme host family focus group, which advised greater exposure of the programme to the public by use of different media to improve visibility. Moreover, the same participant argued that it is extremely important that the programme not be limited to Maputo, but should reach other provinces, as there might be people interested in participating in such programmes. Similar sentiments were articulated by host families in both the SayXchange and CWY focus groups. Specifically, the CWY Mozambique host families called for: Rotation and distribution of volunteers between urban and semi-urban areas as a means to avoid volunteers’ stereotyped attitudes towards the ‘cement town’ and the outskirts. Instead of having participants definitively located in one or other area of the city, make a rotation so that everyone stays everywhere and no stigma will be displayed towards those not staying in ‘the better areas.’

Such rotation, according to a SayXchange Mozambican host family focus group participant, would avoid over- centralising the programme in Maputo as more people are reached and in the process more cultures in the country would be appreciated.

In Tanzania, the CWY partner organisation focus group also pointed at the need for such outreach to assure youth and their parents that the programme is safe for the youth and that they are protected from any harm. A host family focus group participant in Tanzania also pointed out that: The programme can be improved and taken to the next level by having public information and promotion of volunteerism using various mechanisms and institutions. We need to educate people on volunteering, its essence and values, so that it can be a culture that is nurtured. Local governments, corporate, central government and private sector need to be educated and shown how this is important and valuable and how it works and how they can support. I think that is the next level the programme needs to go.

In South Africa, host and partner organisations mentioned the need for more outreach to youth so that even word of mouth can be passing around and get more young people to recruit even their friends into the programme, especially those who have been exposed to the programme. Such outreach can include ‘weekly information sessions to actively reach out communities and sell the programme as a possible reward and opportunity to change lives’ (CWY South African host organisation focus group participant). In Tanzania (CWY Host organisations FGD) availability and access to comprehensive information across the population regarding volunteerism and about the programme was mentioned as an area in need of attention so as to improve youth access to these opportunities. In Kenya, positive reinforcement by well-behaved and self-driven youth who participated in the programme has set a good example to others who are trying to join. The previous participants are therefore ambassadors who share information and whose characters motivate other youth to aspire to participate in the programme.

New information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as the Internet were also cited as sources of information for young people. As such, there are some young people accessing the Internet to find opportunities and want to participate. This means designing better-targeted communications and outreach using such new technologies.

6.2.5 Addressing concerns regarding qualifications limitations (i.e. age, education) Respondents in all participating countries and in both programmes suggested that raising the age limit of young volunteers would lead to greater participation in numbers. Host families also made a similar suggestion. In Kenya, a host family focus group participant, for instance, pointed out that ‘at early twenties, these young people are still young and most of them you feel they really do not know what they are supposed to know, or learn in the programme or of what it will be in their lives. If the age of participants was raised a little, we will get volunteers who are more mature and can appreciate and benefit from the programme more.’ For the South African CWY host and partner organisations for instance, ‘extending this age to 35 years there is a greater likelihood of getting more young people participating, but more so even having a greater impact.’ This was supported by the fact that at 24, most youths in the participating countries have inadequate skills and some realise what they are capable of doing way past their 24th birthday. Extending the age limit upwards, it was argued in Mozambique’s CWY host and partner organisations, would result to greater ‘equality in the distribution of opportunities for young people to express their views, get a fair chance of selection as it would attract more mature participants as well.’ In Tanzania, CWY partner organisation focus group participants noted that the qualification criteria need to be more flexible as this opens or closes an opportunity to participate for youths. Addressing such recruitment as well as orientation processes was also said to be critical because it enables organisations to get the right participants into programme.

6.3 Ideas for improvement provided by host family participants Participants made a few suggestions for improvement of the exchange programmes. Nonetheless, it needs to be noted that these are aspirational and may not necessarily reflect the design of these programmes as presently configured. Taking some of these recommendations on board, in our view, would require in some cases, dramatic programme redesign. Below, we highlight the key recommendations.

6.3.1 Recommendations with financial implications  The rising cost of living resulting from runaway inflation (in 2011 inflation stood at 18% in Kenya) led the CWY host family focus groups in Kenya and Tanzania to recommend the need for the programme to address the challenge of financial resources as the little money given for food, small things and upkeep sometimes leaves host families financially burdened and struggling. For one Kenyan participant: This urgently needs to be addressed so that one does not feel the extra load of taking care of someone else. That money was probably enough three or four years ago, but now costs of living have gone up very much, and the money we get is not able to purchase as it used to. I think the programme needs to review the amount of the support given to ensure that it is consistent with costs of living and we can meet the budget for hosting volunteers. These volunteers there is a quality of life we are supposed to give them at our homes, and most of us cannot manage to give them the required quality of life because costs of living have gone up.

Because of the increases in the cost of living, a Tanzanian a host family member indicated that ‘the amount given to host families be reviewed and increased because of a high cost of living. In Tanzania now, everything is so expensive because there is no electricity and fuel is so expensive and everything now is that expensive.’

 Scaling up the programmes: A SayXchange host family focus group participant in Mozambique pointed out the need for Southern African Trust to partner with more organisations to help raise funds to support the programme’s expansion. The need to scale up these programmes was indeed mentioned in all study sites. This was seen as a means to accommodate more volunteers. In the words of a Kenyan host family focus group participant, ‘the programme be scaled up so that it takes more youths because these children have a very different attitude, very respectful.’

 Longer exchange durations: there were different reasons provided for the need for longer duration of exchange. A Kenyan host family focus group participant indicated that because of the quality of the interpersonal relations that the young Tanzanian youth have, ‘it will be good if they stay longer, they will also impact on other children.’ Another Kenyan host family participant recommended longer durations of stay/placement for different reasons. For him, the duration of stay is so short that by the time volunteers and the host families have known each other well and ‘both feel that they need to continue staying together for some more time, then it is time for them to go back home. They should stay for a little longer so that with the familiarity they have the can learn more from each other, and the participant can learn more about the community.’ A need for longer duration of exchange and greater volunteer training was also highlighted by a Tanzanian host family focus group participant who said that ‘volunteers need to be more trained about what they have to experience here, what they need to know or to find out.’

 Facilitation of cross-border learning even for host families: Considering the goal of helping build a regional identity, host families focus groups in both Kenya and Tanzania recommended that the programme facilitate cross-border learning between host families in the two countries. The CWY may try to facilitate a visit to each other’s countries, even if briefly. This would improve the education and training of host families and for the volunteers as well. In Tanzania a host family focus group participant stated: ‘we need to meet our Kenyan counterparts and exchange experiences. It can be even just a three day workshop where all host families meet either in Kenya or Tanzania, and share experiences, know each other and be able to learn from each other. We can also get the perspective of Kenyans attitude from adults.’

6.3.2 Recommendation on greater involvement and empowerment of host families Participants argued for greater involvement of host families and communities in the programme implementation especially as pointed out by one Kenyan CWY host family focus group participant, because: ‘It is not just only about volunteers. It a programme for all people involved and all need to consider how the programme objectives can be achieved.’ It was thus suggested that host ‘Host families should be more involved families should be more involved ‘as this will make us feel we are part of as this will make us feel part of the the programme because host families are also part of the programme programme because host families are also part of the programme and are 64 contributing their homes, time and taking a risk of living with someone’s child and being responsible for them.’ Kenyan CWY host family focus group participant and are contributing their homes, time and taking a risk of living with someone’s child and being responsible for them (Kenyan CWY host family focus group participant). In Mozambique, host families in the SayXchange programme focus group indicated ‘a need to have greater communication between supervisors and families in order to provide the latter with feedback on ‘their performance’ as reported by the departed volunteer’. A CWY Mozambique host family focus group participant pointed out that such involvement would greatly feed into the symbolic recognition of the participating families, which would improve the quality and impact of the programme.

Various other reasons were given, rationalising such inclusion. In Kenya for instance, participants of the CWY host families and community focus group indicated that there is a need to ensure that host families and communities actually know more about the programme and are informed about the benefits of the programme and what perhaps they need to do, to learn, and how to monitor such things. There is also a need, another Kenyan participant pointed out, to ensure a wider dispersal of the impacts of the programme in the community. This would be achieved, they argued, by alternating or changing host families to ensure more people are engaged in hosting and can experience the benefits of hosting volunteers (a similar idea was suggested in the Mozambican CWY host families focus group). Still, another Kenyan host family participant pointed to a need to ‘empower host families to start projects as a groups, and this project would then be the one where volunteers work when they come. Sometimes, the volunteers come and waste a lot of time doing nothing useful, because they can go to the work placement and are not given anything to do for some time.’

In Tanzania one participant from the host family focus group also pointed to the need for greater training of host families: ‘We got orientation but it was not enough. Perhaps the volunteering and hosting experience could have been better, perhaps I could have tried different things and extra because this has opened my eyes that this programme should not be taken lightly, there are many things to be aware of and I think we were not very much aware of those things.’ The CWY South Africa host families further stated a need to improve the ‘level of consultation of host families because it has not always been on a consensus basis.’ This is not to suggest that there has not been any consultation. In the view of UVIKUITA: In the Tanzanian programme, host families since the beginning of the programme [in] 2004, have been chosen based on various factors - among them previous involvement with the programme or other related programmes. Most of the families have in the past either been volunteers or participants in CWY or other partner’s programmes, volunteered abroad, past project supervisors of CWY and other exchanges and indeed, some are still volunteering or staff members of UVIKIUTA.

UVIKUITA was thus of the opinion that given the past experience of the host families, the ‘involvement and empowerment aspects of host families by UVIKIUTA should not be an issue.’

6.3.3 Exit strategies and post-placement support for volunteers Participants from various study sites and across both programmes indicated that if the programmes hoped to have life-long impacts on the participants, it was necessary to design ways to support the volunteers in their career advancement or education post-placement. ‘It should not be that they just finish the programme and go back home. Some have something to do when they get home, but most do not. They just start struggling to find something. So, if after the programme it is made clear there is a continuation of something that will help 65

these volunteers for their future, it will be good’ (Kenyan host family focus group participant). One way of doing this, as mentioned in the Mozambican CWY host family focus group, was that ex-volunteers be used as supervisors or coordinators in on-going programme implementation. This was already evident in CWY programme in South Africa where some of the staff at the Volunteer Centre are former youth exchange volunteers.

However, such exit strategy support need not be limited to volunteers only. A Kenyan participant recommended that ‘the programme should consider including the element of poverty eradication or reduction and support host families in the programme. At least, at the end of the programme they can also have something to show for it. Like they started this business, or bought this cow due to the programme support they received.’ UVIKUITA in Tanzania acknowledged that ‘such proposals are ideal and welcome. However, not everything can be accommodated in the programme. The reality is that young volunteers participating in these programmes come in with different expectations and [are] of different levels, e.g. to be employed after, [to gain] experience to get jobs, opportunities for scholarships and sponsorships etc. Meeting all these expectations in one single programme might be a bit challenge. Further research is required to identify the different ways in which youth volunteer exchange programmes may be able to stimulate developments within families and/or communities that can have an impact on poverty alleviation in the long term.

6.3.4 Focused programming A host family participant from Tanzania stated that good as it is, the CWY programme also needs to have specific objectives to achieve and these should be regularly assessed to determine whether or not they are being met. Such programming, the participant indicated, needs to address certain key questions like: What do we want these volunteers to achieve? What do we want of parents and families to ensure the programme’s success? Answering such questions, a participant from the Mozambique CWY host family focus group noted the need for the ‘volunteers to be required to prepare reports of their own activities to be monitored by the supervisor with the knowledge of the host mother/father.’ Another Mozambican participant pointed to the need for improvement of host families assessment mechanisms to ensure that the benefits are spread across the community because as it is, only select families ‘benefit from material goods such as mattresses and others do not.’ This suggests that the choice of host families can be a sensitive issue and needs to be carefully treated in the programme design.

7.0 Key Lessons and implications: A Conclusion As pointed out in this report, both youth exchange models demonstrate substantial positive impacts on all stakeholders (volunteers, host organisations and host communities) in a variety of ways. Specifically both programmes report impacts on organisations in all four areas that this study sought to explore: organisational effectiveness, efficiency, financial viability and relevance in achieving given mandate/goals. Both programmes also have impacts on host communities with regard to knowledge/learning, attitudes and values, friendships across borders, skills, career studies, and local and regional action. For volunteers, the programmes registered

impacts on attitudes towards host country, knowledge of development issues, knowledge of host country, and the development of communication, organisational and technical skills.

The most cited impact is friends across borders. This is a positive outcome for the development of regional identity. In addition, the exchange programmes seem to be stimulating new conceptions of civic service in the two regions. There is also a strong learning component in the CWY programme design, but we need to understand better what drives optimum learning in the context of these south-to-south exchange programmes and what the pointers of learning are. One insight that emerges from this study is that, as is the case with all International voluntary service, the engagement of partner organisations in laying the groundwork is critical. The report cites instances for both programmes in which this was not always optimal. This produces an opportunity whereby partners could work together to ensure that the programme is more clearly underpinned by working partnerships and collective design (involving all key stakeholders) in the search for ways to maximise returns. For example, as the Volunteer Centre noted, there is a need to address different conceptions of volunteering among partner organisations and work placement organisations. This may be a function of language, the degree to which organisations have experience of volunteer management, and the motivation and educational levels of the local and international volunteers.

Partner organisations could consider investing more time in preparing host communities to participate in south-to-south programmes and laying the ground work for an improved co-operation with work placements. This could produce a better understanding among host families of the importance of southern youth exchanges, and improved communication with volunteers. Partner investments in the training of Project staff and the allocation of supervisors with appropriate skills would also help to strengthen the programme.

Being relatively new programmes, both models have experienced incubation pains. Partners and communities take time to get to grips with the programme goals and values, and to find ways of working together to design locally suitable strategies for implementing the programmes. Specifically, while the SayXchange is newer and more local in terms of the partnerships driving it, the CWY south-to-south model requires a greater time for partners to adapt to each other.

The CWY and SayXchange programme designs present important learning opportunities for youth volunteer exchange experiences. While the former grows out of a north-south exchange model and the latter was designed within the southern African context, the research findings demonstrate that both programmes still need to evolve and find their appropriate form within the southern and east African contexts in which they are operating. Nonetheless, the issue of skills acquisition is a complex one and differs in each country context. As Volunteer Centre advocates, consideration needs to be given to the motivation of the volunteers to participate in this exchange programme and this impacts on screening processes and volunteers’ expectations. Whilst the programme is relatively short term, it is possible for volunteers to participate in basic skills courses, should these be available in the host community. However, this should not be the primary reason for participation in the programme as it could set expectations that partner countries cannot meet.

It is inevitable that issues of power relations feature in programmes that seek collaboration between partners

from the north and the south. These were manifested to some degree in the CWY programmes in respect of issues of equitable resourcing and expectations of how volunteers should conduct themselves. The risk in southern countries is that the costs of participating in the volunteer exchange programmes may serve to exclude youth who could otherwise benefit enormously from such experience. This makes demands on the partner organisations to find creative solutions to ensure that the programmes can achieve their full potential in resource-constrained communities.

With regard to time constraints that limit youth who do not have prolonged periods of time to spend in a youth volunteer exchange programme, CWY is currently developing Short Youth Leaders in Action programmes with a 4-5 week duration. This model could be adapted by south-to-south partners for shorter regional exchanges or even for exchanges within their own countries and may provide one way of widening the reach of the youth volunteer exchange programmes in southern regions. Moreover, as indicated by CWY, the ‘length, components, criteria, incorporation of youth with disabilities, distribution of resources within budget envelope are all largely the decision of partners.’ Local partners should therefore need to take the initiative to tailor the programme to suit local needs of the communities and volunteers that they are engaging in.

As CWY indicated in its review of these findings, these observations and recommendations provide greater insight into how partnerships can be improved and how to better understand the needs/perspectives of partner organisations prior to introducing changes to the programme design (e.g. models, structure, calendar, etc.). Since CWY is unlikely to be able to fund south-to-south project in perpetuity, many of the needed solutions will have to be partner driven. It would thus be beneficial if CWY could work with partners in finding answers to programme design challenges.

The results also generally point to a tension between an old (traditional) order of volunteerism in African communities and the new (modern) emerging forms exemplified by these exchanges. This is specifically due to monetisation or commodification (through stipends) of time. There is definitely an appreciation, even among host families, of new forms of volunteering such as these exchanges, because of reciprocity, mutual benefit, and an appreciation of common humanity. However, further research on these exchanges is required to determine whether the new forms will be fully appreciated for their potential to bring communities together and whether these impacts are likely to be sustained.

o o o 0 o o o

References Allum, C. (2007). International Volunteering and Co-operation: New Development in Programme Models. A FORUM Discussion Paper, prepared for IVCO 2007, Montreal, Canada

Berg, E. J., (1965). The development of Labor force in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic Development and Cultural Change Vol 13 (4) 394-412.

Canada World Youth, (2006). Canada World Youth Impact Assessment: Synthesis Report

FK Norway (2009). Assessment of Results- FK in Nepal, Norway and Ethiopia: Final Report

Fulbrook, A. (2007). Globalising Volunteering: VSO’s experience in Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 4, Spring 2007, pp. 21-27, available: http://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue4- focus3.

Kanyinga, K. (2001). Dying or Growing? Volunteering in Kenya. A paper presented at a CIVICUS workshop in Cape Town, South Africa, February 2001.

Kanyinga, K. Mitullah W. & Njagi, S. (2007). The Non Profit Sector In Kenya: Size, Scope and Financing, Nairobi, The Institute for Development Studies, university of Nairobi.

Kasaija, P.A. (2004) Regional Integration: A Political Federation of the East African Countries? African Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 7, Nos. 1&2, pp. 21–34

Patel, L., Perold, H., Mohamed, S. E. and Carapinha, R. (2007). Five country study on service and volunteering in Southern Africa. Johannesburg: VOSESA; Centre for Social Development in Africa. South Africa.

Plewes, B. and Stuart, R. (2007). Opportunities and Challenges for International Volunteer Co-operation. A FORUM Discussion Paper, prepared for the IVCO 2007, Montreal.

Roberts, T. (2004). Are Western Volunteers Reproducing and Reconstructing the Legacy of Colonialism in Ghana? An Analysis of the Experiences of Returned Volunteers. MA Development Studies (Research Training) Dissertation, Institute for Development Policy & Management, University of Manchester.

Southern Africa Trust and AFS Interculture South Africa (unpublished). SayXchange Southern Africa Youth Exchange: Integrating the Youth of Southern Africa.

Wilkinson-Maposa, S., and Fowler, A. 2009. The poor philanthropist II: New approaches to sustainable development. Cape Town: Centre for Leadership and Public Values, UCT Graduate School of Business University of Cape Town. Available [online] at URL: http://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/clpv/files/Poor%20Philanthropist%20II_webres.pdf

Wilkinson-Maposa, S., Fowler, A., Oliver-Evans, C., and Mulenga, C.F.N. 2005. The poor philanthropist: How and why the poor help each other. Cape Town: UCT Graduate School of Business. Available [online] at URL: http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=14913_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

Appendices

Appendix 1: Photographs of the Force Field exercises.

Appendix II: Research methodology and research instruments

Appendix I Force Fields Photographs SA CWY

CWY Mozambique

CWY Kenya

CWY Tanzania

SayXchange South Africa

Appendix II South – South Exchange Programs in Southern Africa: Contributions and Future Directions Methodology and research instruments Note: This section was written by Daniel Buckles, www.sas2.net

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Work Space

 Choose and set up a workshop space and working area where people can move chairs and work in small groups.  Ensure there is an open space on the floor where you can arrange chairs around the various group charts (HELPER illustration, Cartesian graph, Force Field graph).

Roles and Responsibilities

 Three focus groups need to be convened in each country: o One with Volunteers (who have returned from service or are currently serving) o One with Host Families o One with Host Organizations in which the volunteers were/are serving. This group may include a representative of the Partner Organization that is responsible for managing the programme in the country.  Researchers are responsible both for facilitation and for documenting the key group discussions.  A skilled note-taker or a tape recorder are highly recommended. Also, a camera to take pictures of people working, and final graphs.  The Youth and Host Family/Community session should take place without the presence of members of the Host/Partner organizations, so that views can be expressed freely (unless there is a strong reason to include them).  The Host Organizations and Partner organizations should meet together, unless there are strong logistical reasons preventing this.

Materials  two flip chart stands with paper and fresh markers (or one with a place to post additional flip chart information)  plenty of large index cards (at least 4 x 6 inches). Suggest minimum of 4 cards per participant available in case some are spoiled.  Black fine markers or thick pens, enough for each participant, sized to ensure legibility.

 a red and a green marker, for writing title cards and when doing Force Field  masking tape for Force Field  Copies of Youth Wheel for each youth participation  Copies of Organization Wheel for each organization participant.  Large, hand drawn version of the HELPER illustration, and a few copies as backup.  Note taking book and (if possible) tape recorder.  Camera for taking pictures of people working, and final graphs.

YOUTH VOLUNTEER FOCUS GROUPS

OVERVIEW OF YOUTH FOCUS GROUP PROCESS: • Free Listing and Pile Sorting the Main Impacts will help us identify the main impacts of the program on youth participants. • Socratic Wheel rating will help us visualize and measure the program's contribution to/impact on the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values volunteers have now.

Schedule (3 hours minimum)  Welcome, workshop objectives, introductions and agenda for the day.  Part 1: Each participant to fill out Personal Information sheet  Part 2: Main impacts  Part 3: Contribution to knowledge, skills, and attitudes

PART 1: VOLUNTEER PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET (10 MINUTES) 1. Name ______2. Year of participation ______3. Program (CWY or SayXchange) ______4. Country of origin ______5. Community of origin (rural community or urban community, circle one) 6. Country where exchange took place ______7. Current age ______8. Gender ______9. Current occupation (check one)  Full-time employment (includes contractual work)  Full-time employment with part-time studies  Part-time employment (includes contractual work)  Full-time student  Full-time student with part-time employment  Part-time student with part-time employment  Unemployed, looking for work  Full-time parent  Self-employed  Other (please specify): ______10. Sector of employment or job search (check all that apply)  Business, finance and administration  Natural and applied sciences & related fields  Health occupations  Education occupations  Government service  Religious service  Arts, culture, recreation and sport  Sales and service occupations  Trades, transport and equipment operators & related fields  Occupations in manufacturing  Occupations in information technologies 76

 Other (please specify): ______11. If presently a student, what is your field of study or training ______12. Is there an intercultural or cross-cultural component in your work, your studies or in your free time activities? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______13. Is there a community involvement or community component in your work, your studies or your free time activities? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______

PART 2 Method: Free Listing and Pile Sorting (1 hour) Purpose of this Exercise: identify the main impacts of the exchange program on youth volunteers. Key Question: What are the two most important impacts or effects the experience has had or is having on you? Facilitator Preparations

 Draw an example main impact card on a flipchart, showing legibility and location of answers (see Step 2)  Write the key question on a flipchart (see above, and Step 2)  Draw the HELPER on a flipchart or on the floor using masking tape (see Step 3).  Write the program activities as a list on a flipchart (see Step 4)  Draw on a flipchart a Cartesian graph with each of the program activities in a quadrant.  Have available enough cards about 4 x 6 inches (large index card) for all participants to fill 2, plus extras.

STEP 1 Explain the purpose of this exercise: this assessment will help us identify the main impacts of the exchange program on youth volunteers.

STEP 2 Elicit descriptions of impacts.  Give two cards and a fine marker to each participant.  Ask each participant to write his/her name in the top left corner of each card and the year they participated in the program. Tell the participants that these cards will be collected at the end of the exercise.  Ask each participant to take several minutes to reflect on their exchange experience (past or present), and then to think about the two most important impacts the experience has had or is having on you.  Ask participants to form random pairs and to briefly share the impacts with each other (less than 5 minutes total time).  Ask each participant to write each of their impacts on a separate card. Ask that the writing be as legible and detailed as possible. Tell the participants to leave some space on the lower left corner of each card.  Provide enough time for all participants to reflect and write the impacts on the cards (about 10 minutes or less in total)

STEP 3 Explain the HELPER illustration and match with impacts.

 Show the HELPER illustration to the participants and explain the 6 possible areas of impact indicated on the illustration: the head for knowledge and learning; the heart for attitudes or values; one hand for skills; the other hand for friendships with people from another country; one foot for career steps (including studies); and the other foot for local or regional action taken after or during the program (in the community the participant lives in, works/studies in, or in the wider community). 78

 Clarify what is meant by skills - a concrete ability to do something - which is not to be confused with attitudes or values. For example, being open-minded is an attitude while knowing how to speak another language, to listen to others or to plan a project are skills that may have been developed or strengthened through the CWY experience.  Ask each participant to write on the lower left corner of their IMPACT cards the one or two parts of the HELPER that best correspond to the impact described on their cards. If they selected two parts of the illustration write both and circle the one ranked first.

STEP 4 Explain the list of program activities and match with impacts

 Show the flipchart list of program activities and verify with the group that this covers the main activities of the program: o Living with a host family/community o Doing a community service project through a CBO o Pairing up/interacting with another youth from another country o Receiving educational/training support (orientation for the whole experience and specific training).  Ask each participant to write on the back of each IMPACT card the one or two program activities that most contributed to the impact described on their card. If two program activities are selected, write both and circle the one ranked first. Also, ask participants to explain on the card how or why the program activity contributed to the impact. Remind them to be legible and detailed in their response.

STEP 5 Share and analyze impacts

 Lay the illustration of the HELPER on the floor and ask the participants to place their cards on the part of the illustration they ranked first (as indicated on the lower left corner of each IMPACT card).  Discuss the distribution of impacts on the different parts of the HELPER. Ask why some parts of HELPER have more cards and why others have fewer cards. Ask what the results tell us about the overall impact of the program on participants. Record the views that participants express.

STEP 6 Share and analyse links to program activities

 Lay the Cartesian graph or table of the program activities on the floor and ask the participants to place their cards in the quadrant or cell for the program activity they ranked first (as indicated on the back of the IMPACT card).  Discuss the distribution of cards among the program activities. Ask why some program activities have more cards and why others have fewer cards. Ask what the results tell us about the Record the views that participants express.

STEP 7 Documentation

 Photograph the distribution of the cards on the HELPER and graph before collecting the cards.  Collect the individual cards. Ensure they are legible.  Collect and label the flipchart notes.  Later, calculate the frequency of each impact area on the HELPER.  Later, calculate the frequency of program activities ranked first, and ranked second.  Later, summarize the results of the group sharing/analysis. 79

PART 3: Socratic Wheel on Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (1.5 hours) Purpose of this Exercise: Measure and discuss the impact of the program on specific Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes of youth volunteers, and form groups with a similar impact profile. Key Question: What is the level of impact of the program on specific aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes, considering your situation before the program compared to now? Preparations

 Prepare handouts of the wheel diagram (see Step 1).  Write the key question on a flipchart (see Step 3).  Draw the wheel diagram on a flipchart, with rating levels of 0 to 5 for each line in the wheel.

STEP 1 Explain the purpose of this exercise: this assessment will help us measure and discuss the impact of the exchange program on knowledge, skills and attitudes of youth volunteers.

STEP 2 Show the Wheel and review the five impact areas and examples, including examples from participants' experience. Clarify what is meant by skills - a concrete ability to do something - which is not to be confused with attitudes towards something. For example, a feeling of solidarity is an attitude, while knowing how to speak another language, grow a crop, or plan a project are skills. 1. Communication skills impact: examples are language skills, cross-cultural communication skills, active listening skills, public speaking skills, etc. 2. Technical skills impact: examples are farming skills, computer skills, teaching skills, etc. 3. Organizational skills impact: planning, team work, leadership, facilitation, mediation, etc. 4. Knowledge of host country: examples are knowledge of history, culture, geography and politics. 5. Knowledge of development issues: examples are knowledge of HIV/AIDS dynamics in host country, knowledge of sources of regional conflict, knowledge of development challenges in host country, knowledge on gender dynamics in host country. 6. Attitude towards the host country: examples are feelings of solidarity, respect for the national culture, appreciation of national contributions, etc.

STEP 3 Reflect on and rate the knowledge, skills and attitude impacts

 Give a Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes Impact wheel sheet to each participant. Ask each participant to write his/her name above the diagram and the year he/she participated in the program.  Ask each participant to take a few minutes to think of the various knowledge, skill and attitude areas, how strong the knowledge, skills, and attitudes were before the program, and which ones may have been strengthened or changed through their experience in the program.

 Ask each participant to rate the impact of the exchange program on each knowledge, skill, attitude area, using the scale of 0 to 5. Write the rating in the small table, and mark the appropriate level on each spoke of the wheel. RATING SCALE FOR LEVEL OF PROGRAM IMPACT 0 = Program had no impact 1 = Program had very small impact 2 = Program had small impact 3 = Program had moderate impact 4 = Program had important impact 5 = Program had very important impact  Once participants have finished rating the level of impact, ask them to draw straight lines between the marks on each spoke. This gives an overview of each participant's knowledge, skill and attitude impacts profile.

STEP 4 Each participant describes the impact on their knowledge, skills and attitudes.

 Ask each participant to write briefly their reasons for each rating score for each spoke of the Wheel, using the back side of the handout. Ask them to briefly describe how and why the impact occurred at the level indicated, writing legibly and labeling

STEP 5 Form groups with a similar impact profile

 Ask each participant to find other participants who have similar impact ratings for all or most impact areas or a similar overall shape marked on their wheels (this does not mean identical wheels, but very similar wheels) and to form groups of people with similar impact profiles.  Ask the members of each group that is formed to discuss what they have in common, that is, what is the common profile of impacts on knowledge, skills and attitudes influenced by their program experience. Ask each group to choose an animal that best represents the key features of their profile developed or strengthened through the exchange experience.

STEP 6 Discuss similarities and differences between groups

 Ask each group to present their animal to the other groups and describe their profile, focusing on what the members of each group have in common (the knowledge, skills or attitudes they have all developed or strengthened through the experience). Option: ask participants to silently mime or dramatize their common profile, while others try to guess what their profile is about.  Facilitator writes on a flipchart the animal name and main observations made in each group presentation. The facilitator then places a card with the animal name for each group on the part of the flipchart wheel best corresponding to the group impact profile. These group locations on the flipchart show the main differences and similarities among groups.  Ask all participants to reflect on the overall flipchart wheel and their group presentations. Ask the following questions: Has the exchange experience had more impact in some areas and less impact in 81

other areas? If so, why? Write on a flipchart the main observations made by participants. Record any remarks or observations that relate to fostering a Southern African regional identity.

STEP 7 Documentation  Photograph the distribution of the cards on the FLIPCHART WHEEL.  Collect the individual WHEELS. Ensure they are legible.  Collect and label the flipchart notes.  Later, calculate the average level of impact for each spoke (sum of all spoke scores divided by the number of participants). Prepare a summary Wheel showing the average level of impact for your group.  Later, summarize the results of group sharing/analysis.

CLOSURE (OPTIONAL METHOD)

 Ask participants to sit in a small circle, with no tables between them.  Invite participants to put their feet firmly on the ground, to relax, and to close their eyes if they feel comfortable doing so.  Ask participants to open their eyes and take turns sharing ONE WORD that best sums up how they feel about the day’s work.  Conclude by thanking participants.

HOST FAMILY/COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS Purpose of this Exercise: identify the main impacts the program had or is having on host families and host communities (VARIATION ON PART 2 OF YOUTH VOLUNTEER EXERCISE; main differences marked in yellow).

OVERVIEW OF HOST FAMILY/COMMUNITY GROUP PROCESS: • Free Listing and Pile Sorting the Main Impacts will help us identify the main impacts of the program on host families and host communities. Schedule (2 hours)

 Welcome, workshop objectives, introductions and agenda for the day.  Part 1: Each participant to fill out Personal Information sheet  Part 2: Main impacts on Host Families and Host Communities

Work Space Choose and set up a workshop space and working area where people can move around, work in small groups, and create a table on a large enough floor space, with chairs arranged in a semicircle around the floor space.

PART 1: Complete Personal Information Sheet HOST FAMILY/COMMUNITY PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET (10 MINUTES) 1. Name ______2. Year of participation ______3. Program (CWY or SayXchange) ______4. What was your relationship with the programme? Tick one: a. Hosted a volunteer in our family  b. Met the volunteer during his/her community activity  5. Country of origin ______6. Community of origin (rural community or urban community, circle one) 7. Country where exchange took place ______8. Current age ______9. Gender ______10. Current occupation (tick one)  Full-time employment (includes contractual work)  Full-time employment with part-time studies  Part-time employment (includes contractual work)  Full-time student  Full-time student with part-time employment  Part-time student with part-time employment  Unemployed, looking for work  Full-time parent  Self-employed  Other (please specify): ______11. Sector of employment or job search (tick all that apply)  Business, finance and administration  Natural and applied sciences & related fields  Health occupations  Education occupations  Government service  Religious service  Arts, culture, recreation and sport 84

 Sales and service occupations  Trades, transport and equipment operators & related fields  Occupations in manufacturing  Occupations in information technologies  Other (please specify): ______12. If presently a student, what is your field of study or training ______13. Is there an intercultural or cross-cultural component in your work, your studies or in your free time activities? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______14. Is there a community involvement or community component in your work, your studies or your free time activities? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______

PART 2: Impacts on Host Families and Host Communities (1.5 hours) Key Question: What are the two most important impacts or effects hosting volunteers has had or is having for you? Preparations

 Write the key question on a flipchart (see above).  Write the rating scale on a flipchart (see Step 2).  Draw a large HELPER on a flipchart (see Step 3).

STEP 1 Explain the purpose of this exercise: Discuss the most important impacts hosting volunteers has had or is having on host families and host communities.

STEP 2 Elicit descriptions of impacts  Ask participants to pair up randomly, making sure at least one person feels comfortable writing. Give each pair 4 cards and a fine marker. Tell the participants that these cards will be collected at the end of the exercise.  Ask each participant to reflect on their hosting experience (past or present), and then to think about the two most important impacts or effects the experience has had or is having for you. Take turns discussing the impacts with the other person (allow about 5 minutes)  Ask each participant (or delegate) to write each impact on a separate card. Ask that the writing be as legible and detailed as possible. Use the back if necessary.  Ask each participant to rate the level of impact or effect on them, using the scale of 0 to 5. Remind participants that a 0 means the experience meant nothing to them while a 5 means the experience had a very important impact or effect on them. Write the number for the rating in the corner of the card. RATING SCALE FOR LEVEL OF PROGRAM IMPACT ON HOST FAMILY 0 = Experience has meant nothing to me/family 1 = Experience has had a very small impact or effect on me/family 2 = Experience has had a small impact or effect on me/family 3 = Experience has had a moderate impact or effect on me/family 4 = Experience had important impact or effect on me/family 5 = Experience had very important impact or effect on me/family

STEP 3 Explain the illustration and match with impacts/effects.  Show the illustration to the participants and explain the possible areas of impact on host families and host communities indicated on the illustration: the head for knowledge and learning about another country; the heart for attitudes or values towards people from another country; one hand for skills

learned from volunteers; the other hand for friendships made with people from another country; one foot for actions in the host community and, The other foot for career and studies.  Clarify what is meant by skills - a concrete ability to do something - which is not to be confused with attitudes. For example, being open-minded is an attitude, while knowing how to speak another language, grow a crop, or plan a project are skills.  Ask each participant to write on the back of their cards the part of the illustration that best corresponds to the impact or effect on them described on their cards. If it relates to two parts of the illustration, indicate both and circle the one ranked first. STEP 4 Share and analyze impacts

 Lay the HELPER illustration on the floor and ask the participants to place their cards on the part of the illustration they ranked first (as indicated on each card).  Discuss the distribution of impacts/effects on the different parts of the HELPER. Ask why some parts of HELPER have more cards and why others have fewer cards. Ask what the results tell us about the overall impact or effect of the volunteer on host families and host communities. Record on a flipchart the views that participants express. STEP 5 Explore improvements  Go around the circle of participants asking each participant to state one thing that could be done to improve the program so that it has a greater positive impact or effect on host families and host communities. Continue until everyone has provided ONE IDEA EACH. Record on a flipchart the views that participants express. Record any remarks or observations that relate to fostering a Southern African regional identity.

STEP 6 Documentation  Photograph the distribution of the cards on the HELPER before collecting the cards.  Collect the individual cards. Ensure they are legible.  Collect and label the flipchart notes.  Later, calculate frequencies of impact areas, and summarize results of group sharing/analysis.

CLOSURE

 Conclude by thanking participants, and reminding them that their feedback will be used to help improve the program in future.

PARTNER AND HOST ORGANIZATION FOCUS GROUPS (DONE JOINTLY OR SEPARATELY)

OVERVIEW OF PARTNER AND HOST ORGANIZATION FOCUS GROUP PROCESS:

 Socratic Wheel rating will help us visualize and measure the exchange program's contribution to improvements in the partner and host organizations.  Force Field analysis of the factors at play affecting youth participation in the exchange program, and ways to enhance youth participation.

Schedule (3.5 hours)

 Welcome, workshop objectives, introductions and agenda for the day (15 minutes).  Part 1: Each participant to register basic information about themselves and about the organization (10 minutes). COMPLETE IN ADVANCE TO SAVE TIME.

 Part 2: Socratic Wheel, to assess the impacts or effects of the exchange program on the host and partner organizations (1 hour).

 Part 3: Force Field, to develop plans to enhance youth participation in the exchange program (2 hours).

PART 1: PARTICIPANT REGISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION INFORMATION SHEET 1. Your name ______2. Name of your organisation 3. Year of participation ______4. Program (CWY or SayXchange) ______5. What was your relationship with the programme? Tick one: i. We are a partner organisation  ii. The volunteer worked in the community served by our organisation  iii. The volunteer worked in our organisation  6. Country in which your organisation operates ______7. Community which your organisation serves (rural community or urban community, circle one) 8. Country where exchange took place ______9. Current age ______10. Gender ______11. Your position in the organisation …………………………………………………………………… 12. Sector in which the organisation works (tick all that apply)

o Business, finance and administration o Natural and applied sciences & related fields o Health occupations o Education occupations o Government service o Religious service o Arts, culture, recreation and sport o Sales and service occupations o Trades, transport and equipment operators & related fields o Occupations in manufacturing o Occupations in information technologies o Other (please specify): ______13. Is there an intercultural or cross-cultural component in your organisation? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______14. Is there a community component in your organisation? yes ( ) no ( ) If yes, what is it? ______

PART 2: Socratic Wheel on Organizations (1 hour) Purpose of this Exercise: Measure and discuss the impact of the exchange program on the host and partner organizations. Key Question: What is the level of impact of the exchange program on the organization, considering the organizational situation before the program compared to now? Preparations

 Prepare handouts of the wheel diagram (see Step 1).  Write the key question on a flipchart (see above).  Draw the wheel diagram on a flipchart, with rating levels of 0 to 5 for each line in the wheel.

STEP 1 Explain the purpose of this exercise: Measure and discuss the impacts of the exchange program on the host and partner organizations.

STEP 2 Show the Wheel and review the four aspects of organizations and examples, including examples from participants' experience. Clarify as needed.

1. Effectiveness of organization in achieving its mandate/goals (examples, meeting goals expressed in charter, resolving key development problems, getting things done no matter what, etc.)

2. Efficiency of the organization in the use of resources (examples, getting things done as planned, meeting objectives within budget, matching the right people to the right jobs, etc.)

3. Relevance of organizational activities to key stakeholders (examples, beneficiaries agree with organizational priorities, satisfaction of beneficiaries with results, etc.)

4. Viability of the organization in terms of its ability to meet ongoing financial requirements (examples, ability to pay operational bills, excess of revenues over expenses, ability to plan for the medium to long term).

STEP 3 Reflect on and rate the impact of the exchange program on the organization.  Ask participants to sit as organizational teams to complete the exercise. Give an Organization Wheel sheet to each team (one per organization, to be completed by the organizational team). Ask the team to write the organizational name at the top of the diagram and the year/month joined the exchange program.  Ask each team to take a few minutes to discuss the various aspects of organizations, how strong the organization was on each aspect before the program, and which aspect may have been strengthened or weakened through the experience in the program.  Ask each organizational team to discuss and arrive at a consensus rating of the impact of the exchange program on each aspect of the organization, using the scale of 0 to 5. REMIND PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY ARE NOT RATING THE ORGANIZATION, BUT RATHER THE IMPACT OF THE

EXCHANGE PROGRAM ON THE ORGANIZATION. Write the rating in the small table on the form, and mark the appropriate level on each spoke of the wheel.

RATING SCALE FOR LEVEL OF PROGRAM IMPACT ON ORGANIZATION 0 = Program had no impact 1 = Program had very small impact 2 = Program had small impact 3 = Program had moderate impact 4 = Program had important impact 5 = Program had very important impact  Once organizational teams have finished rating the level of impact, ask them to draw straight lines between the marks on each spoke. This gives an overview of the impacts of the program on the various aspects of organizations.

STEP 4 Each team explains the impact of the exchange program on the organization.

 Ask each team to write their reasons for each rating score for each spoke, using the back side of the handout. Ask them to describe how and why the impact occurred at the level indicated, for each aspect. Include reference to any negative impacts. Write legibly.

STEP 5 Discuss similarities and differences between groups

 Ask each team to describe their profile to the other teams, focusing on the main impacts on their organization.  Facilitator writes on a flipchart the main observations made in each team presentation. The facilitator then places a card with the organizational name on the part of the flipchart wheel best corresponding to the team impact profile. These team locations on the flipchart show the main differences and similarities among teams.  Ask all participants (freely) to reflect on the overall flipchart wheel and the team presentations. Ask the following questions: Has the exchange experience had more impact on some aspects of the organizations and less impact on other aspects? If so, why? Write on a flipchart the main observations made by participants. STEP 6 Documentation

 Collect the team Wheels, ensure they are legible and properly labelled and collect the flipcharts.

PART 3: Force Field on Youth Participation (2 hours) Purpose of this Exercise: Develop plans to strengthen youth participation in the exchange program.

Key Questions: What are the factors that make it difficult for youth to participate in the exchange program? What are the factors that make it possible for youth to participate in the exchange program? Preparations

 Write the two key questions (see above) on a flipchart.  Put a long DOUBLE line of masking tape on the floor (5 feet long) and arrange chairs in a semicircle around one side of the line.  Write on the masking tape “CORE PROBLEM: LIMITED YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN EXCHANGES”.

STEP 1 Explain the purpose of this exercise: this assessment will help us develop plans to strengthen youth participation in the exchange program. Note that all participants should contribute to the exercise as individuals, not as organizational teams.

STEP 2 Elicit descriptions of factors that make it difficult for youth to participate in the exchange program.  Give two cards and a fine marker to each participant.  Ask each participant to take several minutes to reflect on their knowledge of the exchange program (past or present), and then to think of two factors that make it difficult for youth to participate in the exchange program. These are the driving factors.  Ask each participant to write each of the two factors on a separate card, using 3-4 key words on one side of the card (like a Title) and details on the other side of the card. Ask that the description be legible and detailed.  Provide enough time for all participants to reflect and write the factors on their cards (about 5 minutes or less in total)

STEP 3 Pile and sort driving factors.

 Ask a participant to present one factor and place it on the floor on the farthest side of the horizontal line. Ask other participants if they identified the same or very similar factor, and to place their card under the first card. Continue sharing one factor at a time and group cards that mean the same thing into a pile. Place cards under each other when they are exactly the same, and beside each other when they represent shades of meaning.  Ask if there is an important factor missing from the list of factors organized into piles. If need be, reduce the number of piles and columns by combining them into broader categories. Aim for no more than 5-6 piles.  Create a title card for each pile, using a coloured card or color marker.

STEP 4 Rate each factor.

 Ask participants to rate each title card, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) as a factor driving or contributing to the CORE PROBLEM: LIMITED YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN EXCHANGES. Write the score on the card.

 Use cards to create a column for the factor, showing the rating score by varying the height of the column.

STEP 5 Elicit descriptions of factors that make it possible for youth to participate.  Give two new cards and a fine marker to each participant.  Ask each participant to take several minutes to think about two factors (existing or proposed) that counteract the CORE PROBLEM by making it possible for youth to participate in the exchange program.  Ask each participant to write each of the factors on a separate card, using 3-4 key words on one side of the card (like a Title) and details on the other side of the card. Ask that the writing be as legible and detailed as possible.  Provide enough time for all participants to reflect and write the factors on their cards (about 5 minutes or less in total)

STEP 6 Pile and sort counteracting factors.

 Ask a participant to present one factor and place it on the floor on the side of the horizontal line opposite to the driving factors. Ask other participants if they identified the same or very similar factor, and to place their card under the first card. Continue sharing one factor at a time. Group cards that mean the same thing into a pile. Place cards under each other when they are exactly the same, and beside each other when they represent shades of meaning.  Ask if there is an important factor missing from the list of factors organized into piles. If need be, reduce the number of piles and columns by combining them into broader categories. Aim for no more than 5-6 piles.  Create a title card for each pile, using a coloured card or color marker.  If the factor directly counteracts or related to one of the driving factors, place it opposite.

STEP 7 Rate each factor.

 Ask participants to rate each title card, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) as a factor counteracting the CORE PROBLEM: LIMITED YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN EXCHANGES. Write the score on the card.

 Use cards to create a column for the factor, showing the rating score by varying the height of the column.

STEP 8 Discuss possible actions to reduce difficulties

 Use green dots to identify factors that ORGANIZATIONS have some control over. Use red dots for those over which ORGANIZATIONS have little or no control.  Discuss the overall picture of the forces at play (driving forces and counteracting forces). Ask whether the overall situation is difficult to manage or hopeful?

 Discuss SPECIFIC ways to achieve better youth participation in the exchange program by reducing the DRIVING factors and/or strengthening the COUNTERACTING factors. Taking into account the factors that organizations have some control over.  Facilitator writes on a flipchart the main observations and recommendations made by the group. Record any remarks or observations that relate to fostering a Southern African regional identity.

STEP 9 Documentation

 Photograph the distribution of the columns on the Force Field chart.  Collect, label and fasten the piles of individual cards in each column.  Collect and label the flipchart notes.  Later, same or next day: draw the final Force Field chart on paper  Summarize results of group sharing/analysis.

CLOSURE (OPTIONAL METHOD)